Setting the stage for expanding HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis use in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection continues to disproportionately affect vulnerable populations in Canada; particularly men who have sex with men (MSM). Novel HIV prevention strategies have recently expanded from the use of non-occupational post-exposure prophylaxis (nPEP) after high risk exposures to the use of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) in which individuals reduce risk of HIV infection through use of combination antiretrovirals taken prior to risk exposure. With approval of tenofovir/emtricitabine (TDF/FTC) for use as PrEP only in early 2016, and with limited public funding to date, uptake in Canada is in its preliminary stages. These biomedical prevention strategies have proven efficacy for MSM, and they may have potential for other at-risk populations. With generic formulations of TDF/FTC now available in Canada, there is an opportunity for widespread implementation. Expanding knowledge of health care providers across Canada on how best to assess, refer for or prescribe and monitor PrEP will contribute to the current efforts to reach the global goal of eliminating new HIV infections.
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 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".