HIV outcomes at a Canadian remand centre
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to assess the impact of short-term incarceration on antiretroviral therapy (ART) adherence, virologic suppression, and engagement and retention in community care post-release. Design/methodology/approach A retrospective chart review of patients who attended the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) Outreach Clinic at a Canadian remand center between September 2007 and December 2011 was carried out. Data extraction included CD4 lymphocyte count, HIV viral load, ART prescription refills, and community engagement and retention during and one-year pre- and post-incarceration. Findings Outpatient engagement increased by 23 percent ( p=0.01), as did ART adherence (55.2-70.7 percent, p=0.01), following incarceration. Retention into community care did not significantly improve following incarceration (22.4 percent pre-incarceration to 25.9 percent post-release, p=0.8). There was a trend toward improved virologic suppression (less than 40 copies/ml; 50-77.8 percent ( p=0.08)) during incarceration and 70. 4 percent sustained this one-year post-incarceration ( p=0.70). Originality/value The impact of short-term incarceration in a Canadian context of universal health coverage has not been previously reported and could have significant implications in optimizing HIV patient outcomes given the large number of HIV-positive patients cycling through short-term remand centers.
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 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".