Brief Report: Outcomes of Individuals Using HIV Postexposure Prophylaxis-In-Pocket (“PIP”) for Low-Frequency, High-Risk Exposures in Toronto, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: HIV postexposure prophylaxis-in-pocket ("PIP") is a self-initiated, event-driven HIV prevention modality for individuals with a low frequency of HIV exposures. METHODS: A cohort of 111 patients using PIP as their primary HIV prevention modality was longitudinally evaluated for PIP self-initiation, HIV and sexual transmitted infections, and switching to other HIV prevention modalities between February 2016 and December 2022. RESULTS: A total of 111 patients had 178.7 cumulative patient-years of PIP use. PIP was self-initiated 69 times by 35 (31.5%) individuals, with 0 HIV seroconversions identified. Thirty four individuals (30.6%) transitioned from PIP to pre-exposure prophylaxis and 33 individuals (29.7%) switched from pre-exposure prophylaxis to PIP. CONCLUSIONS: PIP is a useful addition to other pharmacologic HIV prevention tools, and may help prevent infection in those with a lower frequency of unanticipated HIV exposures.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".