MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7114797250 · doi:10.3390/jpm15120623

The CanCURE Survey: Gender-Based Differences in HIV Cure Research Priorities

2025· article· en· W7114797250 on OpenAlexafffundabout

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Personalized Medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics in Clinical Research
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalWomen's Health In Women's HandsUniversité de MontréalMontreal Clinical Research InstituteMcGill University Health Centre
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchMcGill University Health CentreMcGill University
KeywordsHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)Alternative medicineClinical researchInstitutional review boardDescriptive researchRanking (information retrieval)Research designMEDLINE

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The Canadian HIV Cure Enterprise (CanCURE) is a pan-Canadian research collaboratory, investigating approaches for achieving sustainable HIV remission. In preparation for the next research cycle, CanCURE researchers and the Community Advisory Board (CAB) co-designed a web-based survey to identify HIV research priorities from the perspective of people with HIV (PWH) in Canada. The current study examined gender-based differences in these priorities. Methods: From August to December 2024, we recruited PWH across Canada through community organizations and community members. We collected data using REDCap electronic data capture tools hosted at The Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre. The survey included 36 demographic questions, 16 questions related to general knowledge about HIV and HIV cure-related concepts, and 21 questions ranking research priorities. Knowledge questions were multiple choice, while priorities could be ranked on a scale. We summarized participant characteristics via descriptive statistics, and the research priorities were further stratified according to gender. Results: Of 109 participants, 48.6% self-identified as men, 46.8% as women, and 4.6% as two-spirit, non-binary, agender, or other. The median age was 53 years old. Approximately one-third of participants had lived with HIV for ≤14 years, one-third for 15–24 years, and one-third for ≥25 years. Overall, the median knowledge score of respondents was 79%. Among the 78 participants with prior HIV research experience, three times as many men (61.1%) as women (19.0%) participated in interventional studies involving medication or medical procedures. Men ranked preventing HIV transmission to partners as a priority, studying where the virus hides as the second, and avoiding high comorbidity risks as the third. In contrast, women ranked not having to take pills daily as a priority and avoiding higher risks for comorbidities as the second priority. Both genders equally valued expanding community involvement in HIV cure research. However, men focused more on integrating social and behavioural research, while women emphasized the need for diverse ethnic representation in research. Conclusions: Although both men and women share some common priorities regarding HIV cure research, there are notable gender differences in their specific concerns. Furthermore, a significant gender gap in participation in interventional studies, essential for advancing HIV cure research, highlights the importance of aligning research priorities with concerns of both genders.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Incentives · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.996
Threshold uncertainty score0.534

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.725
GPT teacher head0.639
Teacher spread0.086 · 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.

Study designQualitative
DomainIncentives
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
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Personalized MedicineSame topicEthics in Clinical ResearchFrench-language works237,207