Prior history of testing for syphilis, hepatitis B and hepatitis C among a population-based cohort of HIV-positive individuals and their HIV-negative controls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding patterns of serological testing for hepatitis B & C, and syphilis among HIV-positive individuals, prior to HIV diagnosis, can inform HIV diagnosis, engagement and prevention strategies. This was a population-based, retrospective analysis of prior serological testing among HIV-positive individuals in Manitoba, Canada. HIV cases were age-, sex- and region-matched to HIV-negative controls at a 1:5 ratio. Conditional logistic regression was used to examine previous serological tests and HIV status. Odds ratios (ORs) and their 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were reported. A total of 193 cases and 965 controls were included. In the 5 years prior to diagnosis, 50% of cases had at least one test, compared to 26% of controls. Compared to those who did not have serological testing in the 5 years prior to HIV infection, those who had one serological test were at twice the odds of being HIV positive (OR: 1.9, 95% CI: 1.2-2.9), while those with 2 or more tests were at even higher odds (OR: 5.5, 95%CI: 3.7-8.4). HIV cases had higher serological testing rates. Interactions between public health and other healthcare providers should be strengthened.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".