Out of focus: tailoring the cascade of care to the needs of women living with HIV
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Around half of the global adult HIV-positive population are women, yet historically women have been under-represented in clinical studies of antiretroviral therapy (ART) and there has been minimal exploration of gender-specific factors related to the response to and appropriateness of treatment choices in women living with HIV (WLWH). There are several key issues pertaining to the cascade of HIV care that make it important to differentiate WLWH from men living with HIV. Factors that are gender specific may impact on the status of WLWH, affecting access to diagnosis and treatment, optimal clinical management, ART outcomes, retention in care, and the overall long-term wellbeing of WLWH. In this review, we discuss the results of recently reported women-only clinical trials and highlight the key unmet needs of WLWH as they pertain to the cascade of HIV care across World Health Organization European Region countries. As significant knowledge gaps remain, the review identifies key areas where further research is required, in order to support improved management of WLWH and guide informed clinical decision-making, including addressing psychosocial factors as part of comprehensive care.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".