Quantifying rates of HIV-1 flow between risk groups and geographic locations in Kenya: A country-wide phylogenetic study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In Kenya, HIV-1 key populations including men having sex with men (MSM), people who inject drugs (PWID) and female sex workers (FSW) are thought to significantly contribute to HIV-1 transmission in the wider, mostly heterosexual (HET) HIV-1 transmission network. However, clear data on HIV-1 transmission dynamics within and between these groups are limited. We aimed to empirically quantify rates of HIV-1 flow between key populations and the HET population, as well as between different geographic regions to determine HIV-1 ‘hotspots’ and their contribution to HIV-1 transmission in Kenya. We used maximum-likelihood phylogenetic and Bayesian inference to analyse 4058 HIV-1 pol sequences (representing 0.3 per cent of the epidemic in Kenya) sampled 1986–2019 from individuals of different risk groups and regions in Kenya. We found 89 per cent within-risk group transmission and 11 per cent mixing between risk groups, cyclic HIV-1 exchange between adjoining geographic provinces and strong evidence of HIV-1 dissemination from (i) West-to-East (i.e. higher-to-lower HIV-1 prevalence regions), and (ii) heterosexual-to-key populations. Low HIV-1 prevalence regions and key populations are sinks rather than major sources of HIV-1 transmission in Kenya. Targeting key populations in Kenya needs to occur concurrently with strengthening interventions in the general epidemic.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".