Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Linkage to HIV Care Interventions in the United States, Canada, and Ukraine (2010–2021)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of interventions targeting linkage to HIV care in the US, Canada, and Europe. We searched six databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science and CINAHL). Inclusion criteria were English language studies in adults in the US, Canada, or Europe, published January 1, 2010 to January 1, 2021. We synthesized interventions by type and linkage to care outcome. The outcome was cumulative incidence of 3-month linkage. We estimated cumulative incidence ratios of linkage with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We screened 945 studies; 13 met selection criteria (n = 1 from Canada, n = 1 from Ukraine, n = 11 from the US) and were included after full text review (total 37,549 individuals). The cumulative incidence of 3-month linkage in the intervention group was 0.82 (95% CI 0.68-0.94) and control group 0.71 (95% CI 0.50-0.90); cIR of linkage for intervention versus control was 1.30 (95% CI 1.13, 1.49). Interventions to improve linkage to care after HIV diagnosis warrant further attention.
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 | 0.018 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.021 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".