O13.5 The HIV Modes of Transmission Model: A Systematic Review of Its Findings and Adherence to Guidelines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background The HIV Modes of Transmission model (MOT) estimates the annual percentage distribution of new HIV infections (PNI) by key risk groups. It was designed to guide country-specific HIV prevention policies. To determine if the MOT produced context-specific recommendations, we analysed the MOT results by regions and epidemic types and explored the factors (e.g. data inputs, adherence to guidelines) influencing the differences. Methods We systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, UNAIDS reports, and contacted UNAIDS country directors for published MOT results from 2003 (1st published MOT). Results We included 4 journal articles and 20 UNAIDS reports covering 29 countries. The largest PNI was among the low-risk group (one heterosexual partner) in 13 countries [range 26–63%], and increased with low-risk population size. The estimated PNI among female sex workers (FSWs) was universally low [median 1.3%, range 0.04–14.4%], and showed little variability by region and epidemic type despite variation in sexual behaviour e.g. number of partners. In India and Thailand, where FSWs play an important role in transmission, the PNI among FSWs was 2% and 4% respectively. In contrast, the PNI among men who have sex with men (MSM) varied across regions [MSM, range 0.1–89%] and increased with MSM population sizes. The PNI among people who inject drugs [PWID, range 0–82%] was largest in ‘early-phase’ epidemics with low overall HIV prevalence. Most MOT studies are being conducted and reported as per guidelines. However, many countries (n = 23) reported data limitations - especially on high-risk groups - when parameterising the MOT. Conclusion Although countries are generally performing the MOT as per guidelines, results showed little variation in MOT outputs (except MSM and PWID) by regions and epidemic types. Homogeneity in MOT outputs for FSWs, clients and low-risk population may limit the utility of MOT for guiding country-specific interventions in heterosexual HIV epidemics.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".