Has the switch to sexual risk behaviour screening impacted deferrals for pre‐ and post‐exposure prophylaxis therapy for human immunodeficiency virus?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Canadian Blood Services defers donors during and for 4 months after oral pre-exposure or post-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP/PEP) for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) because of concerns about altered viral kinetics. We assessed the impact of the switch from a time-based deferral for men who have sex with men (MSM) to sexual risk behaviour criteria on PrEP/PEP deferrals. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data on PrEP/PEP deferral codes were extracted from our National Epidemiology Database for the 22 months before (Period 1) and after (Period 2) the criteria change. RESULTS: PEP deferrals remained stable (2.3 vs. 1.7 per 100,000 donations in Periods 1 and 2, p = 0.2892), about 45% and 33%, respectively, of these donors who reported a recent needle stick injury. PrEP deferrals increased from 5.9 to 12.4 per 100,000 (p = 0.0001); approximately 30% of donors in both periods had other HIV risk factor deferrals. Donors deferred for PrEP use alone were more likely to be male, first-time users and younger than other donors. CONCLUSION: The switch to sexual risk behaviour led to a small increase in deferrals for PrEP. We may not be measuring the full impact of deferral criteria because potential donors may self-defer and PrEP use is increasing.
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 | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".