Using data from ‘visible’ populations to estimate the size and importance of ‘hidden’ populations in an epidemic: A modelling technique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We used reported behavioural data from cisgender men who have sex with men and transgender women (MSM/TGW) in Bangalore, mainly collected from 'hot-spot' locations that attract MSM/TGW, to illustrate a technique to deal with potential issues with the representativeness of this sample. A deterministic dynamic model of HIV transmission was developed, incorporating three subgroups of MSM/TGW, grouped according to their reported predominant sexual role (insertive, receptive or versatile). Using mathematical modelling and data triangulation for 'balancing' numbers of partners and role preferences, we compared three different approaches to determine if our technique could be useful for inferring characteristics of a more 'hidden' insertive MSM subpopulation, and explored their potential importance for the HIV epidemic. Projections for 2009 across all three approaches suggest that HIV prevalence among insertive MSM was likely to be less than half that recorded in the surveys (4.5-6.5% versus 13.1%), but that the relative size of this subgroup was over four times larger (61-69% of all MSM/TGW versus 15%). We infer that the insertive MSM accounted for 10-20% of all prevalent HIV infections among urban males aged 15-49. Mathematical modelling can be used with data on 'visible' MSM/TGW to provide insights into the characteristics of 'hidden' MSM. A greater understanding of the sexual behaviour of all MSM/TGW is important for effective HIV programming. More broadly, a hidden subgroup with a lower infectious disease prevalence than more visible subgroups, has the potential to contain more infections, if the hidden subgroup is considerably larger in size.
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 | 0.020 | 0.075 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".