A Prospective Cohort Study of Common Childhood Infections in South African HIV-exposed Uninfected and HIV-unexposed Infants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Much evidence of HIV-exposed uninfected (HEU) infant infectious morbidity predates availability of maternal combination antiretroviral therapy and does not control for universal risk factors (preterm birth, low birth weight, suboptimal breastfeeding and poverty). METHODS: This prospective cohort study identified HIV-infected and HIV-uninfected mothers and their newborns from South African community midwife unit. The primary outcome, infectious cause hospitalization or death before 6 months of age, was compared between HEU and HIV-unexposed (HU) infants and classified for type and severity using validated study-specific case definitions. Adjusted odds ratios (aORs) were calculated by logistic regression including stratified analyses conditioned on breastfeeding. RESULTS: One hundred and seventy-six (94 HEU and 82 HU) mother-infant pairs were analyzed. HIV-infected mothers were older (median, 27.8 vs. 24.7 years; P < 0.01) and HU infants more often breastfed (81/82 vs. 35/94; P < 0.001). Groups were similar for maternal education, antenatal course, household characteristics, birth weight, gestational age and immunizations. The primary outcome occurred in 17 (18%) HEU and 10 (12%) HU infants [aOR, 1.45; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.44-4.55]. In stratified analysis restricted to breastfed infants, the aOR for hospitalization due to very severe infection or death was 4.2 (95% CI: 1.00-19.2; P = 0.05) for HEU infants. Hospitalization for diarrhea was more common in HEU than HU infants [8/94 (8.5%) vs. 1/82 (1.2%); P = 0.04]. CONCLUSION: The difference between HEU and HU infants in the probability of infectious cause hospitalization or death in the first 6 months of life was not significant. However, among breastfed infants, severe infectious morbidity occurred more often in HEU than HU infants.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".