MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3023611823 · doi:10.1136/sextrans-2019-sti.608

P530 Addressing underserved men who have sex with men (MSM): advancing the sexual health approach for MSM in vancouver, canada

2019· article· en· W3023611823 on OpenAlexaffabout
Tessa Tattersall, Nathan J. Lachowsky, Mark Hull

Bibliographic record

VenuePoster presentations · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV, Drug Use, Sexual Risk
Canadian institutionsAIDS VancouverUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMen who have sex with menMedicineReproductive healthMale HomosexualityDemographyGerontologyFamily medicineEnvironmental healthHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)PopulationSyphilis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

rates among HIV-negative and HIV-unknown MSM, combined, increased 64% (83.0 to 136.5 per 100,000), while rates among MSM with diagnosed HIV increased 17% during 2011-2014 (1,061.5 to 1,237.3 per 100,000) before decreasing 6% to 1,229.5 in 2015. Rate ratios comparing reported P&S syphilis rates among MSM living with diagnosed HIV to HIV-negative and HIV-unknown MSM decreased annually during this period from 12.8 to 9.0. Conclusion During the most recent five-year period for which data are available, rates of reported P&S syphilis increased among MSM diagnosed with HIV, as well as MSM not diagnosed with HIV. Although rates are higher among MSM diagnosed with HIV, larger relative increases in rates among MSM not diagnosed with HIV and subsequent declining rate ratios indicated that differences between MSM with diagnosed HIV and HIV-negative or HIV-unknown MSM diminished over time.

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 score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.125

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 studies0.0050.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.283 · 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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePoster presentationsSame topicHIV, Drug Use, Sexual RiskFrench-language works237,207