MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4402075580 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2023-082254

Association between different levels of suppressed viral load and the risk of sexual transmission of HIV among serodiscordant couples on antiretroviral therapy: a protocol for a two-step systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis

2024· article· en· W4402075580 on OpenAlexafffund
Pascal Djiadeu, Housne Begum, Chris Archibald, Taline Ekmekjian, Giovanna Busa, Jeffery Dansoh, Phu Van Nguyen, Annie Fleurant

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV/AIDS Research and Interventions
Canadian institutionsPublic Health Agency of Canada
FundersPublic Health AgencyPublic Health Agency of Canada
KeywordsSerodiscordantMedicineViral loadAntiretroviral therapyHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)Transmission (telecommunications)Association (psychology)Family medicineProtocol (science)VirologyImmunologyAlternative medicinePathologyPsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction HIV is a major global public health issue. The risk of sexual transmission of HIV in serodiscordant couples when the partner living with HIV maintains a suppressed viral load of <200 copies of HIV copies/mL has been found in systematic reviews to be negligible. A recent systematic review reported a similar risk of transmission for viral load<1000 copies/mL, but quantitative transmission risk estimates were not provided. Precise estimates of the risk of sexual transmission at sustained viral load levels between 200 copies/mL and 1000 copies/mL remain a significant gap in the literature. Methods and analysis A systematic search of various electronic databases for the articles written in English or French will be conducted from January 2000 to October 2023, including MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials via Ovid and Scopus. The first step of a two-step meta-analysis will consist of a systematic review along with a meta-analysis, and the second step will use individual participant data for meta-analysis. Our primary outcome is the risk of sexual HIV transmission in serodiscordant couples where the partner living with HIV is on antiretroviral therapy. Our secondary outcome is the dose-response association between different levels of viral load and the risk of sexual HIV transmission. We will ascertain the risk of bias using the Risk Of Bias in Non-randomised Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) and Quality in Prognostic Studies (QUIPS), the risk of publication bias using forest plots and Egger’s test and heterogeneity using I 2 . A random effects model will estimate the pooled incidence of sexual HIV transmission, and multivariate logistic regression will be used to assess the viral load dose-response relationships. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system will determine the certainty of evidence. Ethics and dissemination The meta-analysis will be conducted using deidentified data. No human subjects will be involved in the research. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, presentations and conferences. PROSPERO registration number CRD42023476946.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.117
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.161
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.117
Threshold uncertainty score0.619

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1170.161
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0090.006
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0320.051
Bibliometrics0.0150.012
Science and technology studies0.0030.005
Scholarly communication0.0090.007
Open science0.0070.007
Research integrity0.0110.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0340.005

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 head0.350
GPT teacher head0.491
Teacher spread0.141 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Open→Same topicHIV/AIDS Research and Interventions→French-language works237,207→