Bibliographic record
Abstract
e22235 Background: AP unlike HTLV-I associated diseases arrived late in parts of Africa, including Nigeria, where retroviral research was already ongoing in collaboration with the US National Cancer Institute (USNCI), thus providing unique preventive interventional opportunity. A World Health Organization sponsored study of the role of sexual behavior in retroviral transmission in Nigeria was performed 1985–86. Methods: Using an ELISA and an investigational Western blot (IWB) assay, a small survey of the seroprevalence rate (SPR%) of HTLV-I and HIV was conducted in 3 regions of the country among 5 population groups with differing sexual behaviors: normal blood donors (NBD), female commercial sex workers (FCSW), sexually transmitted diseases patients, and religious male/female celibates. 204 samples were re-tested with recombinant enhanced “Singapore” HIV-1/2 WB (SWB) in 1994, in view of earlier HIV-1 IWB negativity. All serological tests were done at USNCI. Results: HTLV-I SPR varied by region and lifestyle, highest in eastern region (ER) (p=0.0000095), FCSW of ER (p=0.0006), and frequency of male heterosexual activity (p=0.024). HIV-1 was undetectable by IWB, while SWB revealed 2/204 HIV-1+ for countrywide SPR: ∼1.0; Western NBD: 1/100 (1.0); Western/Northern NBD: 1/184 (0.54): non-high risk Nigerians: 2/237 (0.84); FCSW: 0/46; celibates: 0/71, adult general Nigerian population (AGNP): ∼0.5–1.0, and translating to (∼240–480)x10 3 HIV-1+ AGNP. Assuming 20 HIV-1+ = 1 case of AIDS death, SWB- determined SPR predicted (∼12–24)×10 3 AIDS deaths among 48×10 6 AGNP in 1985–86, ∼5 of (2.4- 4.8)×10 3 (<0.2%) of whom presented with clinical AIDS features (CAF) at Nigeria's premier health institution (NPHI). Conclusions: In 1985–86, when patients with CAF rarely presented at NPHI and HIV-1 SPR was ≤1.0 in AGNP and FCSW, Nigerian health authority was advised on AP risk, unlike Uganda where it arrived unanticipated. Reports of SPR of 7.7 and 60.0 in AGNP and FCSW in 1996–2000 contrast against contemporary Ugandan SPR (14.0 down to 6.1) and Senegalese (0.4 up to 0.9), probably resulting from varying knowledge gap and angst-related inertia, illustrating mixed fortunes of AP in Africa, transcontinental variation in AP control capability, and providing lessons for the management of future public health challenges. No significant financial relationships to disclose.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".