Drug related and psychopathological symptoms in HIV-positive men who have sex with men who inject drugs during sex (Slamsex): Data from the U-SEX GESIDA 9416 Study.

Dolengevich-Segal, H.; Gonzalez-Baeza, A.; Valencia, J.; Valencia-Ortega, E.; Cabello, A.; Tellez-Molina, M. J.; Perez-Elias, M. J.; Serrano, R.; Perez-Latorre, L.; Martin-Carbonero, L.; Arponen, S.; Sanz-Moreno, J.; De la Fuente, S.; Bisbal, O.; Santos, I.; Casado, J. L.; Troya, J.; Cervero-Jimenez, M.; Nistal, S.; Cuevas, G.; Correas-Lauffer, J.; Torrens, M.; Ryan, P.; The USEX-Gesida Group,

doi:10.1101/703272

Home/Archive/bioRxiv

bioRxiv · 10.1101/703272

Drug related and psychopathological symptoms in HIV-positive men who have sex with men who inject drugs during sex (Slamsex): Data from the U-SEX GESIDA 9416 Study.

View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

ObjectivesIntravenous sexualized drug use also known as slamsex seems to be increasing among HIV-positive men who have sex with men (MSM). This practice may entail severe consequences for physical and mental health in this population. Research on the subject is scarce. The aim of our study was to describe the psychopathological background of a sample of HIV positive MSM who practiced slamsex during the previous year and compare the physical and psychological symptoms between these participants and those who practiced sexualized drug use (SDU) or chemsex without slamsex.\n\nDesign and MethodsParticipants (HIV-positive MSM) were recruited from the U-Sex study in 22 HIV clinics in Madrid during 2016-17. All participants completed an anonymous cross-sectional survey on sexual behaviour and recreational drug use. The present analysis is based on HIV-positive MSM who had practiced SDU.\n\nResultsThe survey sample comprised 742 participants. Of all the participants who completed the survey, 216 (29.1%) practiced chemsex, and of these, 34 (15.7%) had practiced slamsex. Participants who practiced slamsex were more likely to have current psychopathology (depression, anxiety and drug related disorders) than chemsex users. In addition, participants who practiced slamsex had more high-risk sexual behaviours, polydrug use and were more often diagnosed with sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and hepatitis C than those who did not inject drugs. Compared with patients who did not inject drugs, patients who engaged in slamsex showed more severe drug related symptoms (withdrawal and dependence), symptoms of severe intoxication (loss of consciousness), and severe psychopathological symptoms related to SDU, such as paranoid thoughts and suicidal behaviour.\n\nConclusionSlamsex (intravenous SDU) is closely associated with current psychiatric disorders and severe drug-related and psychiatric symptoms.

Source connections

Published article ↗

Explore related subjects

scientific communication and education Preprint

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Dolengevich-Segal, H., Gonzalez-Baeza, A., Valencia, J., Valencia-Ortega, E., Cabello, A., Tellez-Molina, M. J., Perez-Elias, M. J., Serrano, R., Perez-Latorre, L., Martin-Carbonero, L., Arponen, S., Sanz-Moreno, J., De la Fuente, S., Bisbal, O., Santos, I., Casado, J. L., Troya, J., Cervero-Jimenez, M., Nistal, S., Cuevas, G., Correas-Lauffer, J., Torrens, M., Ryan, P., The USEX-Gesida Group,. 2019-07-15. Drug related and psychopathological symptoms in HIV-positive men who have sex with men who inject drugs during sex (Slamsex): Data from the U-SEX GESIDA 9416 Study.. https://doi.org/10.1101/703272

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related preprints

bioRxiv2026

Auditing Biomedical Literature with Blinded AI Peer Review: Where Peer Review Works, Where It Fails, and How to Strengthen It

Biomedical publishing has grown more than elevenfold since 1991, outstripping human peer review. Unblinded language models cannot audit this literature objectively because they recognize famous authors and journals from training memory. We built BARS (Blinded AI Review System), an automated referee that strips titles, author names, institutions, journal headers, and dates before grading full-text manuscripts on a 10-point scale covering methods, evidence, biology, and reproducibility. We used BARS to generate 1,874 blind reviews across 1,714 unique papers. BARS passed 100% of verified sound controls, caught 77% to 91% of internally flawed papers, eliminated a +0.35-point prestige boost, and more than doubled human referee consistency. Across 320 recent open-access articles (2020-2025) from eight fields, 54% failed on core scientific rigor (<5.0/10; 41% excluding megajournals). Revision at selective journals improved preprints more than twice as much as revision at commercial megajournals (+0.62 vs. +0.30 points; baseline-adjusted p = 0.033), and BARS recalled 98% of unresolved human referee critiques across 100 open-review papers. Across 915 date-blinded papers from 1991 to 2025, average scores fell from 7.6/10 to 5.8/10 as megajournals and template database studies expanded. Blinded self-audits of 238 papers by two senior authors -- and of this manuscript itself -- caught real statistical, control, and table errors in our own work. At four cents per paper, BARS offers a practical quality check for authors, journals, and readers (https://veg.github.io/BARS/).

scientific communication and education↗

bioRxiv2026

From Problems to Solutions: How Self-Questions Drive Strong Scientific Reasoning

Metacognition, or awareness and control of thinking, is essential for problem solving because it helps solvers select strategies for learning and decide when to enact them (planning), check their understanding in the moment (monitoring), and assess effectiveness of solutions and learning strategies (evaluating). Most studies that examine metacognition do so retrospectively, leaving a critical gap in how metacognition is used in-the-moment for problem solving. In this study, we utilized a think-aloud interview approach to capture and characterize the metacognitive skills that senior undergraduate life science students at three institution types in the United States used spontaneously while solving challenging biology problems. We found that the students (n = 39) displayed a wide variety and quantity of monitoring, some evaluating, and nearly no planning skills while creating a solution backed with high-quality reasoning. Students frequently used self-questions to monitor and evaluate their thinking. We found that self-questioning is a critical skill for generating solutions, but it only moves problem solving forward if the student asks and correctly answers the self-question out loud. This study illustrates how self-questioning and other metacognitive regulation skills provide links to bridge the gap between a student's prior knowledge and specific features of a challenging problem. Based on our student data, we conceptualized a model of metacognitive phases during problem solving with high-quality reasoning. Finally, we present a self-question scaffold to facilitate the proposed phases (planning, monitoring, reasoning, and evaluating) so educators can equip students with metacognitive and scientific reasoning tools for effective problem solving.

scientific communication and education↗

bioRxiv2026

Preprint solicitation as a natural experiment in scholarly publishing

Preprinting is a growing and increasingly recognized mechanism for scientific communication and productivity and a way to facilitate global access to science. The interplay of preprinting practices with formal peer-reviewed publication is an open question that is now tractable to targeted analysis. Here, we take advantage of nearly a decade of preprint solicitation at Proceedings B to address this question, which offers a quasi-experimental setting for comparing outcomes for solicited preprints and traditionally submitted manuscripts. We used submission records from 15,368 manuscripts from 2018-2024 to assess whether preprint solicitation affects acceptance rates, journal scope, author geographic diversity, and post-publication uptake. Solicited manuscripts were accepted at nearly twice the rate of traditional submissions and received more downloads and citations after publication. Submission topics were broadly similar between the two routes, though solicited manuscripts showed marginally greater subject diversity. Geographic disparities favoring the Global North persisted, but acceptance rates for solicited manuscripts converged across regions, narrowing the gap seen in traditional submissions. These findings extend earlier work on this initiative and indicate that editor-driven solicitation can identify high-quality preprints, broaden geographic representation, and increase research visibility, offering a replicable model for journals seeking to diversify authorship while maintaining editorial standards.

scientific communication and education↗