Causal Effects of Stochastic PrEP Interventions on HIV Incidence Among Men Who Have Sex With Men
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Antiretroviral preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is highly effective in preventing human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection, but uptake has been limited and inequitable. Although interventions to increase PrEP uptake are being evaluated in clinical trials among men who have sex with men (MSM), those trials cannot evaluate effects on HIV incidence. Estimates from observational studies of the causal effects of PrEP-uptake interventions on HIV incidence can inform decisions about intervention scale-up. We used longitudinal electronic health record data from HIV-negative MSM accessing care at Fenway Health, a community health center in Boston, Massachusetts, from January 2012 through February 2018, with 2 years of follow-up. We considered stochastic interventions that increased the chance of initiating PrEP in several high-priority subgroups. We estimated the effects of these interventions on population-level HIV incidence using a novel inverse-probability weighted estimator of the generalized g-formula, adjusting for baseline and time-varying confounders. Our results suggest that even modest increases in PrEP initiation in high-priority subgroups of MSM could meaningfully reduce HIV incidence in the overall population of MSM. Interventions tailored to Black and Latino MSM should be prioritized to maximize equity and impact.
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 | 0.030 | 0.085 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".