The Association Between Heterosexual anal Intercourse and HIV Acquisition in Three Prospective Cohorts of Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The extent to which receptive anal intercourse (RAI) increases the HIV acquisition risk of women compared to receptive vaginal intercourse (RVI) is poorly understood. We evaluated RAI practice over time and its association with HIV incidence during three prospective HIV cohorts of women: RV217, MTN-003 (VOICE), and HVTN 907. At baseline, 16% (RV 217), 18% (VOICE) of women reported RAI in the past 3 months and 27% (HVTN 907) in the past 6 months, with RAI declining during follow-up by around 3-fold. HIV incidence in the three cohorts was positively associated with reporting RAI at baseline, albeit not always significantly. The adjusted hazard rate ratios for potential confounders (aHR) were 1.1 (95% Confidence interval: 0.8-1.5) for VOICE and 3.3 (1.6-6.8) for RV 217, whereas the ratio of cumulative HIV incidence by RAI practice was 1.9 (0.6-6.0) for HVTN 907. For VOICE, the estimated magnitude of association increased slightly when using a time-varying RAI exposure definition (aHR = 1.2; 0.9-1.6), and for women reporting RAI at every follow-up survey (aHR = 2.0 (1.3-3.1)), though not for women reporting higher RAI frequency (> 30% acts being RAI vs. no RAI in the past 3 months; aHR = 0.7 (0.4-1.1)). Findings indicated precise estimation of the RAI/HIV association, following multiple RVI/RAI exposures, is sensitive to RAI exposure definition, which remain imperfectly measured. Information on RAI practices, RAI/RVI frequency, and condom use should be more systematically and precisely recorded and reported in studies looking at sexual behaviors and HIV seroconversions; standardized measures would aid comparability across geographies and over time.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".