Assessing the relationship between physician availability and viral load suppression in British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: In 2014, the Joint United Nations Programme HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) set the target of dramatically reducing the burden of HIV through expansion of access to timely HIV treatment. In order to achieve this target it is necessary to expand access to care along the HIV cascade of care. This study examines the relationship between viral suppression and the availability of physicians providing HIV treatment in British Columbia, Canada. METHODS: Data from the Drug Treatment Program of the British Columbia (BC) Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS was used for this analysis. The floating catchment method was used to assess physician availability. Multivariable Logistic Regression was used to implement a confounder selection technique to independently assess the relationship between physician availability and viral load suppression. RESULTS: Individuals with more than 25 physicians within a one-hour catchment were more likely to reside in urban areas and almost twice as likely to have a suppressed viral load (adjusted odd ratio: 1.97; 95% CI 1.50 - 2.58). CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the impact of physicians' availability on viral load levels. Mapping technology was used to identify the locations in which patients were most impacted by the lack of physicians.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".