Exploring the live birth rates of women living with HIV in British Columbia, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the birth rates of women living with HIV (WLWH) compared to the general population in British Columbia (BC), Canada. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed clinical and population level surveillance data from 1997 to 2015. Live birth rates from 1997 to 2015 among WLWH aged 15-49 years were compared with those of all BC women. Next, the number of live births among WLWH with a live birth between 1997-2012 and HIV-negative controls matched 1:3 by geocode were compared. RESULTS: WLWH had a lower birth rate compared to all BC women [31.4 (95%CI, 28.6-34.3) vs. 40.0 (39.3-40.1)/1000 person years]. Stratified by age, WLWH aged 15-24 years had a higher birth rate while WLWH aged 25-49 years had a lower birth rate than BC women (p<0.01). Between 1997 and 2015, birth rates for both populations decreased among women aged 15-24 years, and increased among women aged 25-49 years, most strikingly among WLWH 35-49 years (p<0.01). When comparing WLWH with a live birth to HIV-negative geocode matched controls, WLWH aged 15-24 years (p = 0.03) and aged 25-34 years (p<0.01) had more live births than controls while WLWH aged 35-49 years did not (p = 0.06). CONCLUSIONS: On a population level, WLWH have lower birth rates than the general population. However, this is not observed among WLWH who have ever given birth compared with matched controls, suggesting that sociodemographic factors may play an important role. WLWH are increasingly giving birth in their later reproductive years. Taken together, our data supports the integration of reproductive health and HIV care.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".