Screening, diagnosis and management of early syphilis in genitourinary medicine clinics in the UK
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our objective was to assess if female sex workers (FSWs) and their potential male clients in Cotonou, Benin, know how to use male condoms correctly. From April to June 2000, 314 FSWs and 208 men were interviewed, and asked to demonstrate on a wooden penis how they usually use male condoms. In all, 27.6% of both women and men tore the condom envelope on the notch; 89.3% of the women versus 75.4% of the men easily found the correct side; 17.3% of the women versus 28.3% of the men held the top of the condom to avoid air entering; 91.4% of the women versus 75.6% of the men correctly unrolled the condom. Taking all the four criteria together, only approximately 11% of participants performed a correct condom use demonstration. FSWs frequently reported condom breakage, which was significantly associated with incorrect condom demonstration (P = 0.04). Correct condom use is suboptimal in these heavy consumers of male condoms in Benin. Condom breakage is frequent and is associated with incorrect use.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".