MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2786229646 · doi:10.2196/publichealth.9321

Population Size Estimation of Gay and Bisexual Men and Other Men Who Have Sex With Men Using Social Media-Based Platforms

2018· article· en· W2786229646 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Stefan Baral, Rachael Turner, Carrie Lyons, Sean Howell, Brian Honermann, Alex Garner, R. Hess, Daouda Diouf, George Ayala, Patrick S. Sullivan, Gregorio A. Millett

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Public Health and Surveillance · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV/AIDS Research and Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentOffice of AIDS ResearchNational Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentJohns Hopkins UniversityNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney DiseasesNational Institute of Mental HealthFogarty International CenterNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteCenter for AIDS Research, University of WashingtonNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious DiseasesamfAR, The Foundation for AIDS ResearchNational Cancer InstituteNational Institutes of HealthNational Institute of General Medical Sciences
KeywordsMen who have sex with menPopulationDemographyHomosexualityPandemicHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)PsychologyGerontologyMedicineCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)SociologyVirology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Gay, bisexual, and other cisgender men who have sex with men (GBMSM) are disproportionately affected by the HIV pandemic. Traditionally, GBMSM have been deemed less relevant in HIV epidemics in low- and middle-income settings where HIV epidemics are more generalized. This is due (in part) to how important population size estimates regarding the number of individuals who identify as GBMSM are to informing the development and monitoring of HIV prevention, treatment, and care programs and coverage. However, pervasive stigma and criminalization of same-sex practices and relationships provide a challenging environment for population enumeration, and these factors have been associated with implausibly low or absent size estimates of GBMSM, thereby limiting knowledge about the dynamics of HIV transmission and the implementation of programs addressing GBMSM. OBJECTIVE: This study leverages estimates of the number of members of a social app geared towards gay men (Hornet) and members of Facebook using self-reported relationship interests in men, men and women, and those with at least one reported same-sex interest. Results were categorized by country of residence to validate official size estimates of GBMSM in 13 countries across five continents. METHODS: Data were collected through the Hornet Gay Social Network and by using an a priori determined framework to estimate the numbers of Facebook members with interests associated with GBMSM in South Africa, Ghana, Nigeria, Senegal, Côte d'Ivoire, Mauritania, The Gambia, Lebanon, Thailand, Malaysia, Brazil, Ukraine, and the United States. These estimates were compared with the most recent Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) and national estimates across 143 countries. RESULTS: The estimates that leveraged social media apps for the number of GBMSM across countries are consistently far higher than official UNAIDS estimates. Using Facebook, it is also feasible to assess the numbers of GBMSM aged 13-17 years, which demonstrate similar proportions to those of older men. There is greater consistency in Facebook estimates of GBMSM compared to UNAIDS-reported estimates across countries. CONCLUSIONS: The ability to use social media for epidemiologic and HIV prevention, treatment, and care needs continues to improve. Here, a method leveraging different categories of same-sex interests on Facebook, combined with a specific gay-oriented app (Hornet), demonstrated significantly higher estimates than those officially reported. While there are biases in this approach, these data reinforce the need for multiple methods to be used to count the number of GBMSM (especially in more stigmatizing settings) to better inform mathematical models and the scale of HIV program coverage. Moreover, these estimates can inform programs for those aged 13-17 years; a group for which HIV incidence is the highest and HIV prevention program coverage, including the availability of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), is lowest. Taken together, these results highlight the potential for social media to provide comparable estimates of the number of GBMSM across a large range of countries, including some with no reported estimates.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.275
Threshold uncertainty score0.350

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.064
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.326 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations60
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Public Health and SurveillanceSame topicHIV/AIDS Research and InterventionsFrench-language works237,207