MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6907277765 · doi:10.20381/ruor-29781

Preventative behaviours and COVID-19 infection in a Canadian cohort of people living with HIV

2023· other· en· W6907277765 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity of Ottawa - Library · 2023
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCohortLogistic regressionLimitingHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)AsymptomaticCohort studySocial distanceDistancing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Few studies have examined preventative behaviour practices with respect to COVID-19 among people living with HIV (human immunodeficiency virus). Using a cross-sectional survey from a Canadian Institutes of Health Research Canadian HIV Trials Network study (CTN 328) of people living with HIV on vaccine immunogenicity, we examined the relationships between participant characteristics and behavioural practices intended to prevent COVID-19 infection. Participants living in four Canadian urban centers were enrolled between April 2021–January 2022, at which time they responded to a questionnaire on preventative behaviour practices. Questionnaire and clinical data were combined to explore relationships between preventive behaviours and (1) known COVID-19 infection pre-enrolment, (2) multimorbidity, (3) developing symptomatic COVID-19 infection, and (4) developing symptomatic COVID-19 infection during the Omicron wave. Among 375 participants, 49 had COVID-19 infection pre-enrolment and 88 post-enrolment. The proportion of participants reporting always engaging in preventative behaviours included 87% masking, 79% physical distancing, 70% limiting social gatherings, 65% limiting contact with at-risk individuals, 33% self-isolating due to symptoms, and 26% self-quarantining after possible exposure. Participants with known COVID-19 infection pre-enrolment were more likely to self-quarantine after possible exposure although asymptomatic (65.0% vs 23.4%, p < 0.001; Chi-square test). Participants with multiple comorbidities more likely endorsed physical distancing (85.7% vs 75.5%, p = 0.044; Chi-square test), although this was not significant in logistic regression analysis adjusted for age, sex, race, number of household members, number of bedrooms/bathrooms in the household per person, influenza immunization, and working in close physical proximity to others. Overall, participants reported frequent practice of preventative behaviours.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.056

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.199 · 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
GenreOther

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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUniversity of Ottawa - LibraryFrench-language works237,207