Improving HIV preexposure prophylaxis uptake with artificial intelligence and automation: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To identify studies promoting the use of artificial intelligence (AI) or automation with HIV preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) care and explore ways for AI to be used in PrEP interventions. DESIGN: Systematic review. METHODS: We searched in the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Research Synthesis database through November 2023; PROSPERO (CRD42023458870). We included studies published in English that reported using AI or automation in PrEP interventions. Two reviewers independently reviewed the full text and extracted data by using standard forms. Risk of bias was assessed using either the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials for randomized controlled trials or an adapted Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale for nonrandomized studies. RESULTS: Our search identified 12 intervention studies (i.e., interventions that used AI/automation to improve PrEP care). Currently available intervention studies showed AI/automation interventions were acceptable and feasible in PrEP care while improving PrEP-related outcomes (i.e., knowledge, uptake, adherence, discussion with care providers). These interventions have used AI/automation to reduce workload (e.g., directly observed therapy) and helped non-HIV specialists prescribe PrEP with AI-generated clinical decision-support. Automated tools can also be developed with limited budget and staff experience. CONCLUSIONS: AI and automation have high potential to improve PrEP care. Despite limitations of included studies (e.g., the small sample sizes and lack of rigorous study design), our review suggests that by using aspects of AI and automation appropriately and wisely, these technologies may accelerate PrEP use and reduce HIV infection.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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".