MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) of HIV among adults

2023· review· en· W4366995481 on OpenAlex
Mohamed Toufic El Hussein, Ivan Viktorovich Malyshev

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Nurse Practitioner · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV/AIDS Research and Interventions
Canadian institutionsRockyview General HospitalMount Royal University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)MedicineAntiretroviral therapyIntensive care medicineTransmission (telecommunications)Clinical PracticeANTIRETROVIRAL AGENTSPost-exposure prophylaxisImmunologyViral loadFamily medicineComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT: In the last several decades, postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) with antiretroviral therapy (ART) has become an effective tool for the prevention of HIV transmission. The continuous evolution of antiretrovirals and the associated update of clinical practice guidelines create a challenge for NPs caring for patients exposed to HIV. Understanding the life cycle of HIV is of paramount importance in streamlining treatment regimens in exposed individuals. ART is a complex combination of drugs targeting different stages of the virus's life cycle within the host. NPs play an essential role in managing treatment for people exposed to HIV and following up on these patients' response and adherence to the treatment protocol. This article provides a comprehensive overview of HIV and step-by-step guidance for NPs treating patients who have been exposed.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.769
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.004

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.338 · 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