MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417424631 · doi:10.1007/s10461-025-04976-5

The Association Between Different Levels of Suppressed Viral Load and the Risk of Sexual Transmission of HIV Among Serodiscordant Couples on Antiretroviral Therapy: A Systematic Review

2025· review· en· W4417424631 on OpenAlexafffund
Pascal Djiadeu, Housne Begum, Michelle Haavaldsrud, Giovanna Busa, Jeffery Dansoh, Phung M. Nguyen, Taline Ekmekjian, Annie Fleurant, Stephan Gadient, Chris Archibald

Bibliographic record

VenueAIDS and Behavior · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV/AIDS Research and Interventions
Canadian institutionsPublic Health Agency of Canada
FundersPublic Health Agency of Canada
KeywordsSerodiscordantViral loadTransmission (telecommunications)Sexual transmissionHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)Health psychologyRisk factorLentivirus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The risk of sexual transmission of HIV in serodiscordant couples when the partner living with HIV (PLHIV) uses antiretroviral therapy (ART) and maintains a suppressed viral load (VL) (< 200 copies/mL) is estimated at 0.00 transmissions per 100 person-years (95% CI 0.00-0.10). A recent review reported an almost zero transmission risk for VL < 1000 copies/mL but lacked quantitative risk estimates. This systematic review aimed to quantify transmission risk across VL levels. A literature search (November 2023, updated January 2025) identified 152 studies, with 9 included in the analysis. Seven possible transmissions occurred when the PLHIV had a VL of < 1000 copies/mL at the last measurement before the estimated time of transmission. However, VL at the exact time of transmission was unknown and VL > 1000 copies/mL cannot be excluded. This review suggests sexual transmission is very rare with recent VL < 1000 copies/mL however, future research is required to establish precise risk estimates.PROSPERO 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 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)0.002
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: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.450
Threshold uncertainty score0.436

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.316 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAIDS and BehaviorSame topicHIV/AIDS Research and InterventionsFrench-language works237,207