Sharing of Injection Drug Preparation Equipment Is Associated With HIV Infection: A Cross-sectional Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Sharing needles/syringes and sexual transmission are widely appreciated as means of HIV transmission among persons who inject drugs (PWIDs). London, Canada, is experiencing an outbreak of HIV among PWIDs, despite a large needle/syringe distribution program and low rates of needle/syringe sharing. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether sharing of injection drug preparation equipment (IDPE) is associated with HIV infection. METHODS: Between August 2016 and June 2017, individuals with a history of injection drug use and residence in London were recruited to complete a comprehensive questionnaire and HIV testing. RESULTS: A total of 127 participants were recruited; 8 were excluded because of failure to complete HIV testing. The remaining 35 HIV-infected (cases) and 84 HIV-uninfected (controls) participants were assessed. Regression analysis found that sharing IDPE, without sharing needles/syringes, was strongly associated with HIV infection (adjusted odds ratio: 22.1, 95% confidence interval: 4.51 to 108.6, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Sharing of IDPE is a risk factor for HIV infection among PWIDs, even in the absence of needle/syringe sharing. Harm reduction interventions to reduce HIV transmission associated with this practice are urgently needed.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".