Global epidemiology of human herpesvirus 8 in men who have sex with men: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Men who have sex with men (MSM) were highly vulnerable to HIV/AIDS and Human herpes virus 8 (HHV8), while the epidemiologic features of HHV8 among MSM remain obscure. We therefore performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the burden of HHV8 in MSM. Electronic databases were searched for publications on HHV8 epidemiologic characteristics among MSM. Random-effect meta-analysis was applied to combine the HHV8 seroprevalence in MSM and odds ratios (ORs) for associated risk factors. Meta-regression and stratified analyses were performed to detect the potential sources of heterogeneity. The pooled HHV8 seroprevalence in MSM was 33.0% (95%CI 29.2%-37.1%). Significant factors associated with HHV8 included HIV (OR 3.70, 95%CI 2.93-4.67), STDs (OR 2.32, 95%CI 1.82-2.97), and high risk sexual behaviors (OR 1.50, 95%CI 1.17-1.92). Race (OR 1.44, 95%CI 0.94-2.12) and multiple sexual partners (OR 1.61, 95%CI 0.95-2.72) were also associated with HHV8 (P < 0.10). We found no significant association between IDU and HHV8 (OR 1.44, 95%CI 0.06-32.47). HHV8 is highly prevalent among MSM and the high risk behaviors may facilitate the transmission of this virus. This situation could be of significant public health importance, especially in the context of HIV coinfection.
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 | 0.009 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.035 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".