Transitions: Novel Study Methods to Understand Early HIV Risk Among Adolescent Girls and Young Women in Mombasa, Kenya, and Dnipro, Ukraine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
study has the following objectives: (1) to describe how the characteristics and length of the transition period and access gap vary across two epidemiological contexts (Mombasa, Kenya, and Dnipro, Ukraine); (2) to understand how the risk of HIV varies by length and characteristics of the transition period and access gap across epidemiologic contexts; and (3) to assess the extent to which HIV infections acquired during the transition period and access gap could mitigate the population-level impact of focused interventions for female sex workers and explore the potential marginal benefit of expanding programs to reach AGYW during the transition period and access gap. Cross-sectional biobehavioral data were collected from young women aged 14 to 24 years who were recruited from locations in Mombasa County, Kenya, and Dnipro, Ukraine, where sex work took place. Data are available for 1,299 Kenyan and 1,818 Ukrainian participants. The survey addressed the following areas: timing of transition events (first sex, first exchange of sex for money or other resources, self-identification as sex workers, entry into formal sex work, access to prevention program services); sexual behaviors (condom use, anal sex, sex under the influence of drugs or alcohol); partnerships (regular and first-time clients, regular and first-time transactional sex partners, and husbands and boyfriends); alcohol use; injection and non-injection illicit drug use; experience of violence; access to HIV prevention and treatment program; testing for sexually transmitted and blood-borne infections and HIV; and reproductive health (pregnancies, abortions, contraceptives). HIV and hepatitis C virus prevalence data were based on rapid test results. Mathematical modeling will be used to generate projections of onward HIV transmission at specific transition points in the sexual life course of AGYW. Taken together, these data form a novel data resource providing comprehensive behavioral, structural, and biological data on a high-risk group of AGYW in two distinct sociocultural and epidemiologic contexts.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".