Factors associated with anal cancer screening uptake in men who have sex with men living with HIV: a cross-sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most western countries have guidelines on anal cancer screening for men who have sex with men (MSM) living with HIV. However, adherence to these guidelines has been studied poorly. This cross-sectional study reports anal cancer screening uptake and identifies the factors associated with a previous screening in MSM living with HIV in a Paris Hospital (France). A total of 410 outpatients completed a self-administered questionnaire on anal cancer screening. The median age was 50 years and the median time from HIV diagnosis was 14.2 years. Overall, 82.2% of patients were aware of anal cancer screening and, of these, 56.7% had already undergone a screening test. The absence of history of screening (43.3%) was most often explained by lack of time (31.3%) or information (28.2%). Among patients familiar with the anal screening procedure, those older than 50 years (adjusted odds ratio=2.4, 95% confidence interval=1.3-4.7, P=0.007) and informed by healthcare providers (adjusted odds ratio=8.2, 95% confidence interval=2.5-32.0, P=0.001) were more likely to have already been screened. To date, adherence to anal cancer screening in MSM living with HIV appears to be inadequate to enable diagnosis of cancer at its early stages. Encouraging physicians to inform MSM living with HIV about anal cancer screening, irrespective of their age, could be an effective strategy to improve anal cancer screening uptake.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".