MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2891489496 · doi:10.1515/em-2017-0017

New Challenges in HIV Research: Combining Phylogenetic Cluster Size and Epidemiological Data

2018· article· en· W2891489496 on OpenAlexaffabout
Nabila Parveen, Erica E. M. Moodie, Joseph Cox, Gilles Lambert, Joanne Otis, Michel Roger, Bluma Brenner

Bibliographic record

VenueEpidemiologic Methods · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV/AIDS Research and Interventions
Canadian institutionsJewish General HospitalUniversité de MontréalUniversité du Québec à MontréalInstitut National de Santé Publique du QuébecMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMen who have sex with menDemographyCluster samplingCluster (spacecraft)Sample size determinationCohortStatisticsSampling (signal processing)Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)Transmission (telecommunications)PsychologyGeographyMedicineComputer scienceMathematicsPopulationSociologyFamily medicineTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract An exciting new direction in HIV research is centered on using molecular phylogenetics to understand the social and behavioral drivers of HIV transmission. SPOT was an intervention designed to offer HIV point of care testing to men who have sex with men at a community-based site in Montreal, Canada; at the time of testing, a research questionnaire was also deployed to collect data on socio-demographic and behavioral characteristics of participating men. The men taking part in SPOT could be viewed, from the research perspective, as having been recruited via a convenience sample. Among men who were found to be HIV positive, phylogenetic cluster size was measured using a large cohort of HIV-positive individuals in the province of Quebec. The cluster size is likely subject to under-estimation. In this paper, we use SPOT data to evaluate the association between HIV transmission cluster size and the number of sex partners for MSM, after adjusting for the SPOT sampling scheme and correcting for measurement error in cluster size by leveraging external data sources. The sampling weights for SPOT participants were calculated from another study of men who have sex with men in Montreal by fitting a weight-adjusted model, whereas measurement error was corrected using the simulation-extrapolation conditional on covariates approach.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.258
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.552
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.258
Threshold uncertainty score0.915

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2580.552
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0080.011
Science and technology studies0.0030.009
Scholarly communication0.0080.012
Open science0.0050.010
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.678
GPT teacher head0.594
Teacher spread0.084 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations3
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEpidemiologic MethodsSame topicHIV/AIDS Research and InterventionsFrench-language works237,207