MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393952320 · doi:10.32920/25460896.v1

HIV incidence and related risks among gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men in Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver: Informing blood donor selection criteria in Canada

2024· preprint· en· W4393952320 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Gilles Lambert, Joseph Cox, Alain Fourmigue, Milada Dvořáková, Herak Apelian, Erica E. M. Moodie, Daniel Grace, Shayna Skakoon‐Sparling, David Moore, Nathan J. Lachowsky, Jody Jollimore, Allan Lal, Abbie Parlette, Trevor Hart, the Engage Study Team

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicBlood donation and transfusion practices
Canadian institutionsCommunity Based Research CentreAIDS VancouverUniversity of British ColumbiaPublic Health OntarioToronto Metropolitan UniversityUniversity of TorontoMcGill University Health CentreUniversity of VictoriaMcGill UniversityInstitut National de Santé Publique du Québec
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchHealth CanadaCanadian Blood ServicesAustralian Government
KeywordsMen who have sex with menHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)DemographyIncidence (geometry)Selection (genetic algorithm)GerontologyGender studiesMedicinePsychologySociologyFamily medicineComputer scienceSyphilis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p><strong>Background:</strong> An individualized behavior-based selection approach has potential to allow for a more equitable blood donor eligibility process. We collected biological and behavioral data from urban gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (GBM) to inform the use of this approach in Canada.</p> <p><strong>Study design and methods:</strong> Engage is a closed prospective cohort of sexually active GBM, aged 16+ years, recruited via respondent-driven-sampling (RDS) in Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver, Canada. Participants completed a questionnaire on behaviors (past 6 months) and tested for HIV and sexually transmitted and blood-borne infections at each visit. Rate ratios for HIV infection and predictive values for blood donation eligibility criteria were estimated by RDS-adjusted Poisson regression.</p> <p><strong>Results:</strong> Data on 2008 (study visits 2017-02 to 2021-08) HIV-negative participants were used. The HIV incidence rate for the three cities was 0.4|100 person-years [95%CI:0.3, 0.6]. HIV seroconversion was associated with age <30 years: adjusted rate ratio (aRR) 9.1 [95%CI:3.2, 26.2], 6-10 and >10 anal sex partners versus 1-6 aRR: 5.3 [2.1,13.5] and 8.4 [3.4, 20.9], and use of crystal methamphetamine during sex: 4.2 [1.5, 11.6]. Applying the combined selection criteria: drug injection, ≥2 anal sex partners, and a new anal sex partner, detected all participants who seroconverted (100% sensitivity, 100% negative predictive value), and would defer 63% of study participants from donating.</p> <p><strong>Conclusion:</strong> Using three screening questions regarding drug injection and sexual behaviors in the past 6 months would correctly identify potential GBM donors at high risk of having recently contracted HIV. Doing so would reduce the proportion of deferred sexually active GBM by one-third.</p> <p><strong>Keywords:</strong> behavior-based screening; blood donation; blood donation policy; blood donor deferral; men who have sex with men; residual HIV risk; risk of transfusion-related infection; selection criteria; sexual behavior.</p>

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.303
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.242 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBlood donation and transfusion practicesFrench-language works237,207