A tale of two countries : all-cause mortality among people living with HIV and receiving combination antiretroviral therapy in the UK and Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives We sought to compare all-cause mortality of people living with HIV and accessing care in Canada and the UK. Methods Individuals from the Canadian Observational Cohort (CANOC) collaboration and UK Collaborative HIV Cohort (UK CHIC) study who were aged ≥ 18 years, had initiated antiretroviral therapy (ART) for the first time between 2000 and 2012 and who had acquired HIV through sexual transmission were included in the analysis. Cox regression was used to investigate the difference in mortality risk between the two cohort collaborations, accounting for loss to follow-up as a competing risk. Results A total of 19 960 participants were included in the analysis (CANOC, 4137; UK CHIC, 15 823). CANOC participants were more likely to be older [median age 39 years (interquartile range (IQR): 33, 46 years) vs. 36 years (IQR: 31, 43 years) for UK CHIC participants], to be male (86 vs. 73%, respectively), and to report men who have sex with men (MSM) sexual transmission risk (72 vs. 56%, respectively) (all P < 0.001). Overall, 762 deaths occurred during 98 798 person-years (PY) of follow-up, giving a crude mortality rate of 7.7 per 1000 PY [95% confidence interval (CI): 7.1, 8.3 per 1000 PY]. The crude mortality rates were 8.6 (95% CI: 7.4, 10.0) and 7.5 (95% CI: 6.9, 8.1) per 1000 PY among CANOC and UK CHIC study participants, respectively. No statistically significant difference in mortality risk was observed between the cohort collaborations in Cox regression accounting for loss to follow-up as a competing risk (adjusted hazard ratio 0.86; 95% CI: 0.72–1.03). Conclusions Despite differences in national HIV care provision and treatment guidelines, mortality risk did not differ between CANOC and UK CHIC study participants who acquired HIV through sexual transmission.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".