MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6961239213 · doi:10.14288/1.0365728

Residential Eviction and Risk of Detectable Plasma HIV-1 RNA Viral Load Among HIV-Positive People Who Use Drugs

2018· article· en· W6961239213 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Collections · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicTurkish Literature and Culture
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEvictionViral loadOdds ratioOddsConfidence intervalPsychological interventionProspective cohort study

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We examined the relationship between residential eviction and exhibiting detectable plasma HIV-1 RNA viral load (VL) among a prospective cohort of antiretroviral therapy (ART)-exposed HIV-seropositive people who use illicit drugs (PWUD) in Vancouver, Canada. We used multivariable generalized estimating equations to estimate the effect of residential eviction on detectable VL and examine ART adherence as a mediating variable. Between June 2007 and May 2014, 705 ART-exposed participants were included in the study, among whom 500 (70.9%) experienced at least one period of detectable VL. In a time-updated multivariable model, eviction independently increased the odds of detectable VL among those who were homeless (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 2.25; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.18 – 4.29) as well as not homeless (AOR = 1.76; 95% CI: 1.17 – 2.63) post eviction. The results of mediation analyses suggest that this association was mediated by incomplete ART adherence. These findings suggest the need for further development and evaluation of interventions to prevent evictions and promote ART adherence among PWUD facing eviction.

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)0.004
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 score0.208
Threshold uncertainty score0.415

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.198 · 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 CollectionsSame topicTurkish Literature and CultureFrench-language works237,207