Prescribing practices in a population-based HIV postexposure prophylaxis program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To characterize factors associated with being prescribed triple or double postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) against HIV in a population-based program. METHODS: Individuals potentially exposed to HIV received a 5 day starter kit of either double or triple antiretroviral PEP between April 1999 and November 2000 and did/did not receive the remaining 23 days PEP. Data were collected through dispensation of kits. Logistic regression identified characteristics independently associated with being prescribed triple therapy starter kits and with any 23 day follow-up. RESULTS: Of 2064 people receiving 5 day PEP [403 (20%) triple and 1661 (80%) double], 590 (29%) received 23 day follow-up. Independently associated with being prescribed triple therapy starter kits were being male [adjusted odds ratio (AOR) 1.38; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.10-1.74; P = 0.006), occupational mucocutaneous injuries (AOR 1.70; 95% CI, 1.14-2.55; P = 0.010), and community needlesticks (AOR 2.04; 95% CI, 1.54-2.69; P < 0.001). Independently associated with being prescribed the 23 day follow-up were being male (AOR 1.24; 95% CI, 1.00-1.53; P = 0.04), community mucocutaneous incidents (AOR 2.83; 95% CI, 1.41-5.70; P = 0.004), community needlesticks (AOR 1.75; 95% CI, 1.33-2.29; P < 0.001), and having received triple therapy as the starter kit (AOR 2.61; 95% CI, 2.07-3.29; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Being prescribed triple therapy starter PEP was associated with being male and with experiencing an occupational mucocutaneous or community needlestick injury. Receiving the remaining 23 days PEP was associated with being male, experiencing a community mucocutaneous or needlestick injury, and triple therapy as the initial 5 day starter PEP.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".