MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4415004621 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0332926

The impact of Undetectable=Untransmittable and viral suppression on condomless sex among mixed HIV-status couples in Canada

2025· article· en· W4415004621 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Min Xi, Sandra Bullock, Joshua Mendelsohn, Veronika Moravan, Ann N. Burchell, Darrell H. S. Tan, Bertrand Lebouché, Jean‐Pierre Routy, Amrita Daftary, Tamara Thompson, Liviana Calzavara

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV/AIDS Research and Interventions
Canadian institutionsDouglas CollegeMcGill UniversityMcGill University Health CentreCoquitlam CollegeRoyal Victoria Regional Health CentreSt. Michael's HospitalCentre for Global Health ResearchRoyal Victoria HospitalUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of TorontoToronto General HospitalPublic Health Ontario
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéModernaGlaxoSmithKlineViiV HealthcareAbbVieMerck
KeywordsHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)Duration (music)Focus groupIdentity (music)Young adultMen who have sex with menSexual minority

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION/OBJECTIVES: Undetectable = Untransmittable (U = U) means that virally suppressed HIV-positive partners cannot transmit HIV. With advancements in HIV care and the increasing number of mixed HIV-status relationships, we quantified U = U agreement (agreeing/disagreeing that U = U is true) among people in mixed HIV-status relationships, assessed response concordance between partners, quantified the association between dyad-level U = U agreement and condomless sex, and estimated interaction effects of viral suppression. METHODS: A cross-sectional opportunistic and snowball sampled survey explored condom use, U = U agreement, viral suppression, sociodemographic/relationship characteristics, and sexual behavior among 306 participants (153 matched dyads) in mixed HIV-status relationships (2016-2018). Bivariate analyses identified sociodemographic/relationship characteristics associated with U = U agreement. Cohen's Kappa assessed response concordance between partners. Firth logistic regression estimated associations between dyad-level U = U agreement and condomless sex with effect modification by viral suppression. RESULTS: Of 293 responses to the U = U question, 53.2% agreed with U = U. Agreement was associated with younger age (p = 0.006) and shorter duration of HIV in relationships (p = 0.034). Concordance between partners was higher for factual questions (kappa>0.50) and lower for belief/decision-making questions (kappa<0.40). The predicted probability of always having condomless sex was 0.60 (95% CI:0.57,0.64) when dyads agreed with U = U and the HIV-positive partner was virally suppressed. The likelihood of always having condomless sex was low when the HIV-positive partner was not virally suppressed, whether or not dyads agreed with U = U (predicted probability range: 0.08;95% CI:0.06,0.11 to 0.25;95% CI:0.17,0.33), or when only one partner agreed with U = U (predicted probability range:0.02;95% CI:0.01,0.02 to 0.11;95% CI:0.07,0.15). CONCLUSIONS: Dyad-level U = U agreement, viral suppression, and views of both partners were key factors in mixed HIV-status couples' decisions to have condomless sex. Future representative studies among sexual identity and racialized minority sub-populations are needed to better understand how mixed HIV-status relationships receive and apply U = U messaging, with a focus on partner age and the duration of HIV within relationships.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.195

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 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
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONE→Same topicHIV/AIDS Research and Interventions→French-language works237,207→