HIV treatment as prevention among injection drug users
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The use of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) as a strategy to prevent the transmission of HIV infection is of substantial international interest. Injection drug users (IDUs) are an important population with respect to HIV treatment as prevention because they are often less likely to access HAART in comparison with other risk groups. RECENT FINDINGS: A recent multicentre randomized clinical trial demonstrated a 96% reduction in HIV transmission among heterosexual serodiscordant couples prescribed early HAART. Consistent with these results, independent observational studies from Baltimore and Vancouver have demonstrated that population level rates of HAART use among IDUs are associated with reduced rates of HIV incidence. In addition, impact assessments of HAART delivery to IDUs have generally demonstrated no negative effects of HAART use on rates of unsafe sex or syringe sharing. SUMMARY: HAART prevents HIV transmission because it dramatically decreases HIV-1 RNA levels in biological fluids. This is relevant to vertical and sexual HIV transmission and also to blood-borne HIV transmission, as it is often the case among IDUs. Efforts to expand HAART to IDUs should be redoubled in an effort to realize both the individual and public health benefits of HAART.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".