What are the situational and behavioral factors associated with condomless anal sex without pre-exposure prophylaxis in MSM?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to identify situational and behavioral factors associated with condomless anal sex without on-demand PrEP in the open-label extension (OLE) study of the ANRS-IPERGAY trial. METHODS: Univariable and multivariable modified Poisson regressions with a generalized estimating equation (GEE) were used. The attributable risk percentage for each explanatory variable and for condomless anal sex without PrEP was calculated. RESULTS: In the OLE, 19% of anal intercourses were unprotected (i.e. no PrEP or condom). Of these, 85% were attributable to sexual intercourse with main partners and 47% with HIV-negative partners. The following factors were positively associated with condomless anal sex without PrEP: a depressive episode in the previous 12 months [aR (95% CI), P-value: 1.49 (1.02--2.17), 0.039], a higher number of sexual intercourses during the previous 4 weeks [1.01 [1.002--1.02], 0.014], and sexual intercourses under the influence of alcohol [1.45 (1.10--1.92), 0.008]. By contrast, condomless anal sex without PrEP was less frequent during sexual intercourses with known casual, unknown casual and multiple partners [0.20 (0.14--0.30), <0.001; 0.10 (0.05--0.20), <0.001; 0.11 (0.05--0.29), <0.001, respectively], as well as with HIV+ partners with an undetectable viral load and HIV+ partners with a detectable/unknown viral load or unknown serology status [0.57 (0.38--0.86), 0.007; 0.52 (0.32--0.87), 0.012, respectively]. CONCLUSION: Choosing to have condomless anal sex without PrEP depends primarily on the sexual partner's characteristics (level of intimacy, serological status). This reflects a form of rationality in HIV risk management. However, our results raise questions about the true efficacy of managing HIV risk using this approach.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".