Biological Validation of Self-Reported Unprotected Sex and Comparison of Underreporting Over Two Different Recall Periods Among Female Sex Workers in Benin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Self-reported unprotected sex validity is questionable and is thought to decline with longer recall periods. We used biomarkers of semen to validate self-reported unprotected sex and to compare underreporting of unprotected sex between 2 recall periods among female sex workers (FSW). METHODS: At baseline of an early antiretroviral therapy and pre-exposure prophylaxis demonstration study conducted among FSW in Cotonou, Benin, unprotected sex was assessed with retrospective questionnaires, and with vaginal detection of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and Y-chromosomal deoxyribonucleic acid (Yc-DNA). Underreporting in the last 2 or 14 days was defined as having reported no unprotected sex in the recall period while testing positive for PSA or Yc-DNA, respectively. Log-binomial regression was used to compare underreporting over the 2 recall periods. RESULTS: Unprotected sex prevalence among 334 participants was 25.8% (50.3%) according to self-report in the last 2 (or 14) days, 32.0% according to PSA, and 44.3% according to Yc-DNA. The proportion of participants underreporting unprotected sex was similar when considering the last 2 (18.9%) or 14 days (21.0%; proportion ratio = 0.90; 95% confidence interval, 0.72-1.13). Among the 107 participants who tested positive for PSA, 19 (17.8%) tested negative for Yc-DNA. CONCLUSIONS: Underreporting of unprotected sex was high among FSW but did not seem to be influenced by the recall period length. Reasons for discrepancies between PSA and Yc-DNA detection, where women tested positive for PSA but negative for Yc-DNA, should be further investigated.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".