HIV and herpes simplex virus type 2 epidemiological synergy: misguided observational evidence? A modelling study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether observational studies of HIV and herpes simplex virus type 2 (HSV-2) infections have the capacity to assess the HIV/HSV-2 epidemiological synergy. METHODS: An individual-based Monte Carlo model was used to simulate HIV/HSV-2 epidemics in two scenarios: no HIV/HSV-2 biological interaction and HSV-2 seropositivity enhancing HIV acquisition. Cross-sectional observational studies were simulated by sampling individuals from the population to assess resulting crude and adjusted ORs of the HIV/HSV-2 association. Meta-analyses were conducted to estimate the pooled mean ORs. Impact of under-reporting of sexual behaviour and miscapture of high-risk individuals was assessed through sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Assuming no HIV/HSV-2 biological interaction, the crude HIV/HSV-2 OR ranged between 1.38 and 9.93, with a pooled mean of 6.45 (95% CI 5.81 to 7.17). Adjustment for the number of sexual partners over last year, over lifetime and for both partner numbers simultaneously reduced the mean OR to 5.45 (95% CI 4.90 to 6.06), 3.70 (95% CI 3.32 to 4.12) and 3.54 (95% CI 3.17 to 3.94), respectively. Assuming HIV/HSV-2 biological interaction, the crude OR ranged between 3.44 and 9.95, with a pooled mean of 8.05 (95% CI 7.14 to 9.07). The adjustments reduced the mean OR to 7.00 (95% CI 6.21 to 7.90), 3.76 (95% CI 3.32 to 4.25) and 3.68 (95% CI 3.25 to 4.17), respectively. Under-reporting of partners reduced the confounder-adjustment effects. Miscapture of high-risk individuals considerably lowered the estimated ORs. CONCLUSIONS: It is difficult to control for sexual-behaviour confounding in observational studies. The observed HIV/HSV-2 association appears more consistent with two infections sharing the same mode of transmission, rather than with HSV-2 enhancing HIV acquisition.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".