MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2768963704 · doi:10.1111/hiv.12565

Promoting high standards of care for women living with HIV: position statement from the Women Against Viruses in Europe Working Group

2017· review· en· W2768963704 on OpenAlexaff
Justyna Kowalska, Karoline Aebi‐Popp, Mona Loutfy, Frank A. Post, Marı́a Jesús Pérez-Elı́as, Margaret Johnson, F Mulcahy

Bibliographic record

VenueHIV Medicine · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV/AIDS Research and Interventions
Canadian institutionsWomen's College HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePsychosocialTolerabilityHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)Family medicineMental healthHealth carePosition paperReproductive healthGerontologyAlternative medicinePsychiatryEnvironmental healthPopulationPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Gender-related factors can influence management decisions, treatment outcomes and the overall long-term wellbeing of people living with HIV (PLWH). The Women Against Viruses in Europe (WAVE) Working Group was established to promote the health and wellbeing of women living with HIV (WLWH). WAVE is part of the European AIDS Clinical Society (EACS) and organizes annual workshops to discuss different issues in the management of WLWH. METHODS: In 2016, 34 WAVE members including community representatives, HIV clinicians and researchers met to discuss standards of care for WLWH and to review current guidelines. Participants focused on three different themes: (1) access to and engagement and retention in care; (2) monitoring of women on antiretroviral therapy and management of comorbidities; and (3) review of EACS treatment guidelines. RESULTS: Five priority areas for optimizing the care of WLWH were identified: (1) psychosocial aspects of HIV diagnosis and care; (2) mental health and wellbeing; (3) pharmacokinetics, toxicity and tolerability of antiretroviral therapy; (4) coinfections and comorbidities; and (5) sexual and reproductive health. WAVE recommendations are provided for each of these areas, and gaps in knowledge and needs for changes in currently existing standards are discussed. CONCLUSIONS: This position statement provides an overview of the key recommendations to optimize the care of WLWH that emerged during the 2016 WAVE workshop.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.062
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.043
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.062
Threshold uncertainty score0.328

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0620.043
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0050.011
Research integrity0.0160.021
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.004

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.

Opus teacher head0.070
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.327 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations20
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHIV MedicineSame topicHIV/AIDS Research and InterventionsFrench-language works237,207