Understanding Patterns of Healthy Aging Among Men Who Have Sex With Men: Protocol for an Observational Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: With the graying of sexual and gender minority communities and the growing number of people aged ≥50 years living with HIV, it is increasingly important to understand resilience in the context of the psychosocial aspects of aging and aging well. OBJECTIVE: This paper aims to describe the methods and sample for the Understanding Patterns of Healthy Aging Among Men Who Have Sex With Men study. METHODS: This observational cohort study was conducted within the Multisite AIDS Cohort Study (MACS) and was designed to explore resiliencies to explain patterns of health and illness among middle-aged and older sexual minority men. To be eligible, a participant had to be an active participant in the MACS, be at least 40 years of age as of April 1, 2016, and report any sex with another man since enrollment in the MACS. RESULTS: Eligible participants (N=1318) completed six biannual surveys between April 2016 and April 2019. The mean age of the sample was 59.6 years (range 40-91 years). The sample was mostly White, educated, gay-identified, and included both HIV-positive (656/1318, 49.77%) and HIV-negative (662/1318, 50.23%) men. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding resiliencies in aging is a critical springboard for the development of more holistic public health theories and interventions that support healthy aging among older sexual minority men. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR1-10.2196/25750.
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 | 0.038 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.041 | 0.010 |
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".