Reasons for Testing Women for Genital <i>Chlamydia trachomatis</i> Infection in the Calgary Region
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the clinical reason(s) for screening women with varying degrees of risk for genital Chlamydia trachomatis (CT) in the Calgary region. DESIGN: Women aged 15 to 75 years were enrolled at various patient care locations. Pertinent risk factors for genital CT infection were recorded and a gynecological examination was performed. Two endocervical swabs and a first-void urine sample were collected for CT detection using two different nucleic acid amplification test methods. SETTING: Calgary is an urban region that provides healthcare services to a population of almost one million people. Microbiology services are provided by Calgary Laboratory Services through a centralized regional laboratory service. MAIN RESULTS: 504 women with a mean age of 28.1 +/-SD 8.22 years were enrolled. Two hundred ninety-one women (57.8%) were at high risk for acquiring genital CT infection. Twenty-eight (5.6%) tested positive for CT infection and almost all of these women (26 of 28, 93%) had risk factors for acquiring infection. Of the high-risk women, 9.8% were CT positive versus only 1.3% of women at low risk (P=0.0001). Only two of 152 (1.3%) women older than 30 years had genital CT infections. Although most women were asymptomatic, those with laboratory-confirmed CT infection were more likely to have genitourinary symptoms. Three hundred forty-three of 476 (72%) women who did not have genital CT infection had no risk factors, and screening was done as part of a routine gynecological examination for other purposes (prenatal visit, Pap smear). CONCLUSION: Women without risk factors are being screened routinely for genital CT infection as part of a routine gynecological examination done for other reasons. Elimination of the routine screening of low-risk women older than 30 years of age would decrease the current regional utilization of CT tests by as much as one-third.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".