MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412923234 · doi:10.1071/sh24008

A public health ethics analysis of Doxy-PEP: arguments for and against – the ‘no’ case

2025· article· en· W4412923234 on OpenAlexaff
Bridget Haire

Bibliographic record

VenueSexual Health · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV/AIDS Research and Interventions
Canadian institutionsKensington Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePublic healthGonorrheaGenital wartsEnvironmental healthFamily medicineCancerPathologyInternal medicineCervical cancerHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In September 2023, the Australasian Society for HIV, Viral Hepatitis and Sexual Health Medicine recommended doxycycline pre-exposure prophylaxis to prevent STIs in gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men. However, expanding antibiotic use carries the risk of propagating antimicrobial resistance among target STIs and non-target pathogens, prompting some experts to advocate withholding doxycycline pre-exposure prophylaxis until further research is done. Thus, the use of doxycycline pre-exposure prophylaxis is a question of whether the risk of antimicrobial resistance to the population is justified by the health benefits to gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men. Here, we outline the public health ethics cases for and against this strategy.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.756
Threshold uncertainty score0.432

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.188
GPT teacher head0.486
Teacher spread0.298 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSexual HealthSame topicHIV/AIDS Research and InterventionsFrench-language works237,207