MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6923564673 · doi:10.14288/1.0369292

Sex work and HIV incidence among people who inject drugs

2018· article· en· W6923564673 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Collections · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSex work and related issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIncidence (geometry)Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)Sex workHarm reductionCohortConfidence intervalMen who have sex with menCohort studyCumulative incidence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective—Although the global burden of HIV infection among sex workers (SW) has been well recognized, HIV-related risks among sex workers who inject drugs (SW-IDU) have received less attention. We investigated the relationship between sex work and HIV incidence among people who inject drugs (IDU) in a Canadian setting. Design—Prospective cohort study. Methods—Using Kaplan–Meier methods and the extended Cox regression, we compared HIV incidence among SW-IDU and non-SW-IDU in Vancouver, Canada, after adjusting for potential confounders. Results—Between 1996 and 2012, 1647 participants were included in the study, including 512 (31.1%) IDU engaged in sex work. At 5 years the HIV cumulative incidence was higher among SW-IDU in comparison to other IDU (12 vs. 7%, P = 0.001). In unadjusted Cox regression analyses, HIV incidence among SW-IDU was also elevated [relative hazard: 1.69; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.13–2.53]. However, in a multivariable analysis, sex work did not remain associated with HIV infection (adjusted relative hazard: 0.74; 95% CI: 0.45–1.20), with cocaine injection appearing to account for the elevated risk for HIV infection among SW-IDU. Conclusion—These data suggest that local SW-IDU have elevated rates of HIV infection. However, our exploration of risk factors among SW-IDU demonstrated that drug use patterns and environmental factors, rather than sexual risks, may explain the elevated HIV incidence among SW-IDU locally. Our findings highlight the need for social and structural interventions, including increased access to harm reduction programs and addiction treatment.

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)0.000
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.659
Threshold uncertainty score0.686

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.282 · 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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen Collections→Same topicSex work and related issues→French-language works237,207→