Short report: Characterizing HIV care among a clinical sample of transgender women living with HIV
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction This study aimed to characterize and identify factors associated with HIV care among transgender (trans) women living with HIV (TWLWH) in two urban centres in Canada. Methods Retrospective data were collected from clinic charts of TWLWH aged 16 years and older across seven family medicine, endocrinology and/or HIV clinics in Montreal and Toronto, Canada, from 2018 to 2019 (n = 86). We assessed the proportion of individuals being ever engaged in HIV care [defined as having any recorded antiretroviral therapy (ART) regimen and/or viral load], current ART use, and most recent viral load (suppressed [<200 copies/ml] vs. unsuppressed) overall and compared across subgroups using χ2 tests. Results All TWLWH in our sample [100.0%, 95% confidence interval (CI): 95.8–100.0%] were engaged in HIV care; most (93.0%, 95% CI: 85.4–97.4%) were currently using ART and most (93.4%, 95% CI: 85.3–97.8%) with complete data (n = 71/76) were virally suppressed. A higher proportion of trans women of colour (100.0%) reported current ART use compared with white trans women (76.9%, p = 0.017). A higher proportion of those with no documented history of injection drug use (IDU; 96.6%) were virally suppressed compared with those with a history of IDU (66.7%, p = 0.022). Although not statistically significant, 96.2% of those currently reporting feminizing hormone use were virally suppressed, compared with 85.0% of those not reporting use (p = 0.202). Conclusions Once engaged in HIV care, TWLWH in Canada appear to have excellent ART use and viral suppression. Findings can be leveraged to identify target populations to enhance HIV care and to further explore the relationship between gender‐affirming medical care and HIV care.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".