The Diagnosis of Genital Herpes – Beyond Culture: An Evidence‐Based Guide for the Utilization of Polymerase Chain Reaction and Herpes Simplex Virus Type‐Specific Serology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accurate identification of persons with genital herpes is necessary for optimal patient management and prevention of transmission. Because of inherent inaccuracies, clinical diagnosis of genital herpes should be confirmed by laboratory testing for the causative agents herpes simplex virus type 1 (HSV-1) and HSV type 2 (HSV-2). Further identification of the HSV type is valuable for counselling on the natural history of infection and risk of transmission. Laboratory methods include antigen detection, culture, polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and conventional and type-specific serology (TSS). PCR has, by far, the greater sensitivity and should be the test of choice for symptomatic cases. HSV-2 TSS is indicated for patients with genital lesions in whom antigen detection, culture or PCR fail to detect HSV, and for patients who are asymptomatic but have a history suggestive of genital herpes. HSV-2 TSS is further indicated for patients infected with HIV. HSV-2 TSS along with HSV-1 TSS may be considered, as appropriate, in evaluating infection and/or immune status in couples discordant for genital herpes, women who develop their first clinical episode of genital herpes during pregnancy, asymptomatic pregnant women whose partners have a history of genital herpes or HIV infection, and women contemplating pregnancy or considering sexual partnership with those with a history of genital herpes. The above should be performed in conjunction with counselling of infected persons and their sex partners.
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 | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.027 |
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".