MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3009213793 · doi:10.1097/qai.0000000000002335

Racial Disparities in Anal Cancer Screening Among Men Living With HIV: Findings From a Clinical Cohort Study

2020· article· en· W3009213793 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Jennifer Gillis, Troy Grennan, Ramandip Grewal, Gina Ogilvie, Mark Gaspar, Daniel Grace, Aïsha Lofters, Janet Raboud, Olli Saarela, Ron Rosenes, Irving E. Salit, Ann N. Burchell

Bibliographic record

VenueJAIDS Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCervical Cancer and HPV Research
Canadian institutionsWomen's College HospitalBC Centre for Disease ControlUniversity of British ColumbiaPublic Health OntarioUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health NetworkToronto General HospitalSt. Michael's Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineAnal cancerCohortOdds ratioMen who have sex with menCohort studyCancerFamily medicineGynecologyInternal medicineHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)Syphilis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Our objective was to quantify the extent of anal cancer screening among men receiving HIV specialty care in Ontario, Canada, and evaluate factors associated with screening. SETTING: Cross-sectional questionnaire within a multisite clinical HIV cohort. METHODS: A questionnaire assessing knowledge and experience with human papillomavirus-associated diseases and their prevention was administered in 2016-2017 to 1677 men in the Ontario HIV Treatment Network Cohort Study. We used logistic regression to identify factors associated with having discussed screening with a health care provider and self-reported receipt of screening [digital anal rectal examinations (DARE); anal cytology or anoscopy]. Results reported as adjusted odds ratios (aORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: Forty percent of men reported ever having had anal cytology/anoscopy, and 70% had ever had DARE. After accounting for differences in age, sexual orientation, years since HIV diagnosis, previous diagnosis with AIDS, knowing someone with human papillomavirus-associated cancer, comfort discussing anal health, education, and income, the proportion screened differed by self-identified race. Compared with white men, Asian men were less likely to have discussed screening with a health care provider (aOR = 0.48; 95% CI: 0.29 to 0.80) or to have been screened by DARE (aOR = 0.27; 95% CI: 0.17 to 0.44) or anal cytology/anoscopy (aOR = 0.51; 95% CI: 0.31 to 0.83), and African, Caribbean, or black men (aOR = 0.47; 95% CI: 0.31 to 0.70) were less likely to have had DARE. Results were consistent when restricting the analyses to gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men. CONCLUSION: Our findings highlight the potential for disparities in anal cancer screening that need to be considered when developing guidelines and screening programs to reduce the burden of anal cancer among men living with HIV and ensure health equity.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.426
Threshold uncertainty score0.847

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.048
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.305 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations24
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAIDS Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency SyndromesSame topicCervical Cancer and HPV ResearchFrench-language works237,207