Longitudinal Analysis of HIV Risk and Substance Use Patterns for Men Who Have Sex With Men and Women and Men Who Have Sex With Men Only
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Men who have sex with men and women (MSMW) experience discrimination from same-sex and heterosexual communities partially because of perceptions that they engage in high-risk sexual behavior, have elevated polysubstance use levels, and constitute an HIV bridge population. We used a longitudinal multivariate generalized linear mixed model comparing sexual risk and substance use patterns for men who have sex with men only (MSMO) with MSMW in the same cohort study. Data consisted of 771 men reporting 3,705 sexual partnerships from 2012 to 2017. For high-risk sexual behavior, multivariate results showed nonsignificant (p > .05) differences for partner number and commercial sex work and significantly less (p < .05) HIV prevalence and condomless anal sex. However, MSMW had significantly higher levels of hallucinogen and prescription opioid use as well as substance treatment histories. Only one HIV-positive MSMW had a transmittable viral load, negating the concept of MSMW being an HIV bridge population. Results indicate the need for additional longitudinal studies comparing MSMO and MSMW.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".