Lessons from Building a Large, Public, HIV-Related Database in Support of Ending the HIV Epidemic Initiative (Preprint)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The HIV epidemic remains a national priority in the United States, and the Ending the HIV Epidemic initiative has renewed the call for expanded prevention and treatment strategies capable of reducing new HIV infections by 90% by 2030. Achieving this goal requires robust, integrated data for understanding HIV-related needs, barriers to care, and the effectiveness of interventions. However, despite the existence of numerous publicly available datasets, few integrate multiple domains such as HIV outcomes, social determinants of health, and community-level factors. The lack of unified data and difficulty linking datasets hampers efforts for meaningful cross-domain analyses to tailor HIV management and treatment strategies. The resulting fragmentation constitutes a methodological gap: implementation teams lack replicable guidance for constructing unified HIV and contextual databases from public sources. In this viewpoint, we describe our experience building a unified compilation of publicly available HIV and community data to identify factors influencing HIV outcomes and interventions. The completed database comprises 242 variables drawn from 8 public sources mapped across clinic, zip code, county, and state levels of geography. Rather than simply reporting what we built, we position four core decisions as transferable methodological advances: (1) treating source identification as a bounded phase before construction begins, (2) adopting automated data engineering tools from the outset rather than manual entry, (3) establishing a shared data dictionary before the first variable is entered, and (4) integrating quality control throughout the workflow rather than as a final phase. The build required approximately 350 total project hours and revealed an initial spot-check error rate of approximately 33%, which we attribute primarily to manual data entry. By sharing the approach used to develop this database and making the final resource publicly accessible through the Yale Center for Methods in Implementation and Prevention Science, we aim to reduce barriers to data access and encourage similar data integration efforts. The methodological framework described in this paper is intentionally designed to be replicable with modest resources, and we present it as a practical model for research teams operating without specialized infrastructure. Consolidating HIV, social determinants of health, and contextual variables into a unified data source is a critical step toward enabling deeper, more comprehensive analysis and supporting ongoing efforts to end the HIV epidemic in the US.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.223 | 0.525 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.030 | 0.040 |
| Open science | 0.013 | 0.020 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 0.012 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".