The prevalence and characteristics of HIV/AIDS patients presenting at a chiropractic outpatient clinic in Toronto, Ontario. A retrospective, observational study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence and presenting complaints of HIV/AIDS patients attending a chiropractic outpatient teaching clinic in downtown Toronto, and explore their self-reported comorbidities, medications used, and consumption of other complementary health care. METHODS: A random sample was drawn from the entire clinic file collection spanning the years 2007 to 2013. Files were anonymized and coded to ensure confidentiality. RESULTS: A total of 264 files were radomly pulled from approxinately 3750 clinic files. The prevalence of HIV positive patients was 5.7% (15/264), predominantly males, with 3 patients having developed AIDS. Co-infection with Hepatitis B and/or C was identified in 5/15 patients. The most common presenting complaint was neck pain (80%), followed by low back pain (47%) compared to 20% and 43% respectively for the general cohort. Eleven of 15 patients were on antiretroviral treatment (ART); The frequency of comorbidities was 8/15 (53%) however, none were identified as being dominant. In addition to chiropractic, 7/15 patients reported receiving other complementary therapies. CONCLUSIONS: A relatively small proportion of HIV/ AIDS patients were found to be receiving treatments in this downtown chiropractic clinic situated within a community health clinic setting. The principal presenting complaint was neck pain.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".