Trends and Sex Differences in Access to HIV Care with Scale Up of National HIV Treatment Guidelines in Pune, India
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Test and treat is the current global standard, yet sex differences persist in access to HIV care. We assessed the differences in presentation and antiretroviral therapy (ART) uptake by sex and ART-eligibility period among ART-naive adults registered at a public ART center in India. Four ART eligibility periods were defined by programmatically determined CD4 criteria (periods I-IV: CD4 <200, <350, ≤500 cells/μL, and any CD4) between January 2005 and December 2017. Of 23 957 participants, 12 510 were male. Men consistently presented with lower median CD4 count (period I-IV, P < .05) and higher median age (period I-III, P < .001) than women. From period I to IV, median age increased in women ( P < .0001), ART initiation time decreased in both sexes ( P < .001), and median CD4 remained <200 cells/µL in men. Advanced HIV disease and increasing age at presentation are persistent sex-specific trends which warrant innovative HIV testing strategies in both sexes.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".