MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7113682528

Three infections, one fight: Protocol for an implementation study to map needle prevalence and implement HIV, syphilis, and hepatitis C prevention interventions in Regina, Saskatchewan

2025· preprint· W7113682528 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueOSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) · 2025
Typepreprint
Language
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV, Drug Use, Sexual Risk
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPublic healthPsychological interventionGeospatial analysisHepatitis CSoftware deploymentProtocol (science)Research ethicsQualitative researchPsychosocial
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Saskatchewan is facing a public health crisis driven by high rates of HIV, syphilis, and hepatitis C (HCV) infections, particularly among people who use drugs (PWUD). Injection drug use is a major contributor to these syndemic infections, exacerbated by structural barriers such as stigma, poverty, and limited culturally safe healthcare. Innovative, community-informed approaches are urgently needed to improve prevention, testing, and linkage to care. Methods and analysis: This study will implement a rapid assessment and response system in Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada integrating geospatial mapping of community needle prevalence with pop-up interventions. Needle hotspot maps will be used to guide the deployment of community-based pop-up events offering point-of-care testing for HIV, syphilis, and HCV, alongside education on pre- and post-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP and PEP). A convergent participatory mixed-methods design will be used to evaluate feasibility, acceptability, and effectiveness, guided by the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintainence (RE-AIM) framework. Quantitative data will assess changes in knowledge of PrEP and PEP, satisfaction with the intervention, and report new diagnoses and participant demographics descriptively. A qualitative sub-study will include 30 participants and will explore experiences with the intervention, barriers to care, and perceptions of service delivery. Ethics and dissemination: Ethical approval has been obtained from the Research Ethics Board of the Saskatchewan Health Authority (#24-91). Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations, and community reporting. This study may provide a model of community-based, geospatial testing and education that could be upscaled and adapted elsewhere. Registration: Open Science Framework https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/HVK3B

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)0.064
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.043
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.970
Threshold uncertainty score0.419

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0640.043
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.004
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0090.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0060.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1250.031

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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.421
Teacher spread0.347 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOSF Preprints (OSF Preprints)→Same topicHIV, Drug Use, Sexual Risk→French-language works237,207→