Circumcision and Reduced Risk of Self-Reported Penile Coital Injuries: Results From a Randomized Controlled Trial in Kisumu, Kenya
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Injuries to the penis during intercourse represent a hypothesized mechanism by which uncircumcised men are at increased risk for HIV. There are no published, systematically collected data regarding mild penile coital trauma to our knowledge. We identified risks of self-reported penile coital injuries in men 18 to 24 years old in a randomized trial of circumcision to prevent HIV in Kisumu, Kenya. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Each participant underwent standardized interview, medical history and physical examination at baseline, and 6, 12, 18 and 24 months after enrollment. Self-reported penile coital injuries were assessed at each visit, and were defined as penis feels sore during sex, penis gets scratches, cuts or abrasions during sex, and skin of the penis bleeds after sex. Generalized estimating equation analysis estimated odds ratios for penile coital injuries. RESULTS: From February 2002 to September 2005, 2,784 participants were randomized. At baseline 1,775 (64.4%) men reported any coital injury including 1,313 (47.6%) soreness, 1,328 (48.2%) scratches, abrasions or cuts and 461 (16.7%) bleeding. On multivariable analysis coital injury risk was lower for circumcised than for uncircumcised men with soreness (OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.64-0.80), scratches/abrasions/cuts (OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.46-0.59), bleeding (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.51-0.75) and any coital injury (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.54-0.68). Other significant risks included increasing age, multiple recent sex partners, HSV-2 seropositivity and genital ulcers (p <0.05). Condom use, cleaning the penis soon after intercourse and being married/cohabiting were protective (p <0.05, each). CONCLUSIONS: Self-reported penile coital injuries were common in these healthy young men. Circumcised men were at lower risk for coital injuries. Verifying penile coital injuries, the mechanism of acquisition and the association with HIV risk is needed.
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 | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 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".