MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4280633462 · doi:10.25100/cm.v52i3.4875

Delayed HIV treatment, barriers in access to care and mortality in tuberculosis/HIV co-infected patients in Cali, Colombia.

2022· article· en· W4280633462 on OpenAlexaff
Jorge A González-Duran, Regina Victoria Plaza, Lucy Luna, María Patricia Arbeláez, Meagan Deviaene, Yoav Keynan, Zulma Vanessa Rueda, Diana Marín

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV/AIDS Research and Interventions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTuberculosisMedicineProportional hazards modelRetrospective cohort studyHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)CohortInternal medicineMycobacterium tuberculosisImmunologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: To determine factors associated with mortality in tuberculosis/HIV co-infected patients in Cali, Colombia. Methods: This retrospective cohort design included tuberculosis/HIV co-infected persons. Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression were used to estimate survival and risk factors associated with mortality. Results: , initiation of tuberculosis treatment within two weeks, having any health insurance coverage and CD4 count information conferred a survival advantage. Conclusions: Delays in treatment initiation and factors associated with limited health care access or utilization were associated with mortality. As HIV and tuberculosis are both reportable conditions in Colombia, strategies should be focused on optimizing treatment outcomes within both tuberculosis and HIV programs, particularly improving early HIV diagnosis, early antiretroviral therapy treatment initiation, and adherence to tuberculosis treatment.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.121
Threshold uncertainty score0.241

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.305 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed→Same topicHIV/AIDS Research and Interventions→French-language works237,207→