Global Prevalence of Chronic Pain in Women with HIV: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Chronic pain is common among people with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and detrimental to quality of life and overall health. It is often underdiagnosed, undertreated, and frankly dismissed in women with HIV, despite growing evidence that it is highly prevalent in this population. Thus, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the global prevalence of chronic pain in women with HIV. The full protocol can be found on PROSPERO (identifier CRD42022301145). Of the 2984 references identified in our search, 36 were included in the systematic review and 35 in the meta-analysis. The prevalence of chronic pain was 31.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 24.6%–38.7%; I2 = 98% [95% CI, 97%–99%]; P < .0001). In this global assessment, we found a high prevalence of chronic pain among women with HIV, underscoring the importance of understanding the etiology of chronic pain, identifying effective treatments, and conducting regular assessments in clinical practice.
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 | 0.012 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.026 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".