Stability of condomless anal sex behaviours of young Black men who have sex with men: implications for HIV prevention, including pre-exposure prophylaxis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Among a sample of young Black men who have sex with men (YBMSM), this study evaluated the stability of annually assessing condomless anal receptive sex (CARS) as an indication for pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) use. Further, the study determined the proportion of YBMSM engaging in CARS rarely (defined as twice or less per year) who may thus may be more efficiently protected by condom use rather than PrEP. METHODS: This is a secondary analysis of data collected as part of a randomised control trial that recruited 600 YBMSM from a sexually transmissible infection (STI) clinic located in the southern US. Of these, 144 met the inclusion criteria for the present study. Only HIV-uninfected men assigned to the control condition, who completed the 12-month period of observation, were included. RESULTS: Correlation coefficients between the baseline level of CARS were 0.16 at the first quarter and 0.09, 0.10, and 0.03 at each successive quarter. Discriminant function analysis indicated similarly weak predictive ability of the baseline measure (r = 0.215; P = 0.16). Of 106 reporting no CARS at baseline, 73 (68.9%) had summed scores of zero (no CARS) over the four follow-up assessments. Of 38 reporting any CARS at baseline, 14 (36.8%) had a summed score of zero for the observation period. Of these same 38, 27 (71.0%) had summed scores of two or fewer events of CARS for the observation period. CONCLUSION: Among YBMSM, CARS in not a stable behaviour over 12 months. Many YBMSM indicated for PrEP may benefit from be a program concurrently promoting condom use.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".