<i>Candida</i> Transmission and Sexual Behaviors as Risks for a Repeat Episode of <i>Candida</i> Vulvovaginitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess associations between female and male factors and the risk of recurring Candida vulvovaginitis. METHODS: A prospective cohort study of 148 women with Candida vulvovaginitis and 78 of their male sexual partners was conducted at two primary care practices in the Ann Arbor, Michigan, area. RESULTS: Thirty-three of 148 women developed at least one further episode of Candida albicans vulvovaginitis within 1 year of follow-up. Cultures of Candida species from various sites of the woman (tongue, feces, vulva, and vagina) and from her partner (tongue, feces, urine, and semen) did not predict recurrences. Female factors associated with recurrence included recent masturbating with saliva (hazard ratio 2.66 [95% CI 1.17-6.06]) or cunnilingus (hazard ratio 2.94 [95% CI 1.12-7.68]) and ingestion of two or more servings of bread per day (p </= 0.05). Male factors associated with recurrences in the woman included history of the male masturbating with saliva in the previous month (hazard ratio 3.68 [95% CI 1.24-10.87]) and lower age at first intercourse (hazard ratio 0.83 [95% CI 0.71-0.96]). CONCLUSIONS: Sexual behaviors, rather than the presence of Candida species at various body locations of the male partner, are associated with recurrences of C. albicans vulvovaginitis.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".