Cost-Effectiveness of Screening Swab or Urine Specimens for Chlamydia trachomatis From Young Canadian Women in Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Undetected and untreated Chlamydia trachomatis infections can result in a significant health burden. Diagnostic testing refers to tests performed on patients with symptoms, whereas screening refers to testing specimens in asymptomatic patients. The goal of diagnostic testing and screening programs are early identification of infections to prevent upper tract infection and transmission to other partners. GOAL: To compare the costs and outcomes of alternative diagnostic testing and screening programs for women ages 15 to 24 years in the province of Ontario, Canada. STUDY DESIGN: Using outcome probabilities from the literature and a consensus group, together with the costs from insurance billing, a decision analytic model was constructed to determine the baseline risk of C trachomatis and related sequelae. Seven diagnostic testing and screening programs were compared over a 10-year period. The programs compared included the use of nucleic acid amplification assays collected from urine or endocervical swab specimens. RESULTS: Largely because of lower sensitivity the urine-based testing or screening programs were dominated by the swab-based programs. The move from swab-based testing to a swab-based screening program for high-risk women costs $1873 per case of C trachomatis averted. Expanding the program further to include all women in Ontario between 15 and 24 years of age is considerably more costly at $5990 per case averted. CONCLUSIONS: It is more costly and more effective to screen and treat high-risk women ages 15 to 24 years for C trachomatis than to perform only swab-based diagnostic testing on symptomatic women. Expanding the screening program to include all women ages 15 to 24 years is considerably more expensive and only moderately more effective than screening only high-risk women.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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".