Nurse-Led HIV PEP Program Used by Men at High Risk for HIV Seroconversion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We trialed a nurse-led HIV postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) program in two sexually transmitted infection clinics in Ottawa, Canada. From September 5, 2013 to September 4, 2015, 112 persons sought PEP: 103 were male, of whom 84 were men who have sex with men (MSM). Seventy-two patients (59 MSM) initiated PEP; 11 were diagnosed with HIV: 6 diagnoses occurred during initial assessment (all MSM; 1 also shared injection equipment); 5 MSM were diagnosed with HIV within 1 year of seeking PEP. This level of positivity indicated that, when access is facilitated, individuals at high risk of HIV seek PEP. However, the 8.5% of MSM who seroconverted within a year of taking PEP demonstrated that this group remained at risk and needed additional prevention services. Delivery of PEP should include provision of medication, as well as an opportunity to address individual-level HIV risk strategies and population-level syndemic conditions that contribute to ongoing HIV transmission among MSM.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".