STD Core Group Membership in Manitoba, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Rationale: Sexually transmitted disease (STD) core groups essential in maintaining the endemicity of STD in a population have been defined in terms of reproductive numbers resulting from mathematical equations. Although essential in setting priorities for the management of cases and contacts, the application of these formulas to a population in order to define and predict core group members has seldom been attempted. Objective: To define the STD core group(s) in Manitoba and develop descriptors for core group members. Methods: The proposed core group populations comprised individuals from the Manitoba notifiable diseases registry who were repeatedly infected with chlamydia, gonorrhea, and with both organisms, and multiply-named sexual contacts of cases from 1990 through 1992. These populations were compared with individuals with only one laboratory confirmed infection, and contacts who had been named only once in the 3-year period. Once differences between the repeater and nonrepeater populations were established, values from the literature for β and D and the recorded numbers of partners and variance (c) were substituted in the equation R0 = βcD. Results: The repeater populations differed significantly from the nonrepeater populations, except for groups with gonorrhea, which were similar. The values for R0 approximated unity and were higher in repeater populations than in the nonrepeater populations, indicating that repeater populations comprise a substantial part of the mathematically defined core group. The values for R0 were lowest for groups infected only with chlamydia, higher for those infected with gonorrhea, and were highest for those infected with both organisms. Conclusions: This research has confirmed the importance of repeater populations in maintaining infection and emphasizes the crucial role played by partners who have no laboratory confirmed disease.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".