Distinct risks, clinical characteristics and outcomes by age at time of HIV diagnosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: New HIV diagnoses in persons aged > 50 years (hereafter 'older persons') are becoming more common; the clinical features and outcomes of these older individuals are poorly described. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of all new adult HIV diagnoses between October 1989 and December 2019 in southern Alberta, Canada. Differences in risk for HIV acquisition and screening, sociodemographic/clinical characteristics, and causes of death were compared between individuals younger and older than 50 years at the time of diagnosis. RESULTS: New HIV diagnoses in persons > 50 years old increased from 7% in 1990 to 18% in 2019. Risk for HIV acquisition and screening reasons differed by age. Heterosexual sex (29%) was the greatest risk factor among older persons, contrasting with male same sex activity in younger persons (51%) (P < 0.001). Illness was the most common indication for testing in older persons (47%), whereas younger persons were more likely to have requested testing (34%) (P < 0.001). Relationship status differed, with 33% of older persons being married to an opposite sex partner versus 12% in younger persons (P < 0.001). Although older persons had a lower mean nadir CD4 count (132 cells/µL) than younger persons (181 cells/µL) (P < 0.001), 80% of deaths between 2010 and 2019 in the older group were attributable to non-AIDS-related causes versus 47% in younger patients. Since 2000, AIDS-related deaths and potential years of life lost have declined for both age groups. CONCLUSION: The increase in new HIV diagnoses in persons aged > 50 years in southern Alberta suggests that older individuals require customized approaches for optimizing HIV diagnosis and treatment.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 teacher head, 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".