Sex differences in HIV testing among elders in Sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Elders (age 50+) HIV demographic (age and sex) data are essential to better understand their HIV service utilization and develop appropriate evidence-based responses and policies. Despite a significant prevalence rate of HIV and growing numbers of this population group, data are still scarce, and studies have neglected them in Sub-Saharan Africa. The aim of this protocol is to outline the methodological process of a systematic review that will gather qualitative and quantitative data to critically examine sex differences in HIV testing among elders (age 50+) in Sub-Saharan Africa. METHODS: This protocol adheres to the PRISMA-P reporting guidelines. We will conduct a systematic database search to retrieve all observational and qualitative studies. Electronic search strategies will be developed for MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Global Health, and CINAHL for studies reporting HIV data. Two reviewers will independently screen all citations, full-text articles, and abstract data. The search strategy will consist of free-text and Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms. Search terms for elders (50+) will include the following: "elders", "older adults", "aged", "geriatric" and "seniors". The primary outcome of interest is sex differences in the uptake of HIV counselling and testing (HCT). The study methodological quality (or bias) will be appraised using appropriate tools. Screening, data extraction, and assessments of risk of bias will be performed independently by two reviewers. Narrative synthesis will be conducted with studies that are compatible based on population and outcome. As it will be a systematic review, without human participants' involvement, there will be no requirement for ethical approval. DISCUSSION: The systematic review will present key evidence on sex differences in HIV testing among elders in Sub-Saharan Africa. The findings will be used to inform program developers, policymakers, and other stakeholders to enhance sex disaggregated HIV data to improve access to HIV counselling and testing service for elders in Sub-Saharan Africa. The final manuscript will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed journal and scientific conferences. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO: CRD42020172737 .
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 | 0.131 | 0.111 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.072 | 0.011 |
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".