The Impact of Pre-exposure Prophylaxis for Human Immunodeficiency Virus on Gonorrhea Prevalence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) has been shown to be highly effective in reducing the risk of HIV infection in gay and bisexual men who have sex with men (GbMSM). However, PrEP does not protect against other sexually transmitted infections (STIs). In some populations, PrEP has also led to riskier behaviour such as reduced condom usage, with the result that the prevalence of bacterial STIs like gonorrhea has increased. Here we develop a compartmental model of the transmission of HIV and gonorrhea, and the impacts of PrEP, condom usage, STI testing frequency and potential changes in sexual risk behaviour stemming from the introduction of PrEP in a population of GbMSM. We find that introducing PrEP causes an increase in gonorrhea prevalence for a wide range of parameter values, including at the current recommended frequency of STI testing once every 3 months for individuals on PrEP. Moreover, the model predicts that a higher STI testing frequency alone is not enough to prevent a rise in gonorrhea prevalence, unless the testing frequency is increased to impractical levels. However, testing every 2 months in combination with sufficiently high condom usage by individuals on PrEP would be successful in maintaining gonorrhea prevalence at pre-PrEP levels. The results emphasize that programs making PrEP more available should be accompanied by efforts to support condom usage and frequent STI testing, in order to avoid an increase in the prevalence of gonorrhea and other bacterial STIs.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".