Prevalence of Sexually Transmitted Infections and High-Risk Sexual Behaviors in Heterosexual Couples Attending Sexually Transmitted Disease Clinics in Peru
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to determine the prevalence of sexually transmitted infection (STIs) in heterosexual couples and the sexual behaviors associated with their acquisition. GOAL: The goal of this study was to better direct educational efforts to decrease STI among heterosexual couples in Lima, Peru. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a case-control study in 195 heterosexual couples without HIV infection who attended 2 sexually transmitted disease clinics in Lima, Peru. A case was defined as an individual with one or more newly diagnosed STIs such as gonorrhea, chlamydia, trichomoniasis, herpes simplex, syphilis, mycoplasma, or ureaplasma. RESULTS: Thirty-three percent of individuals (41 men and 89 women) had at least one STI and 26 couples (13%) had the same STI detected. Men who have sex with men (MSM) accounted for 13% of all men, had higher rate of STIs and higher risk behaviors than non-MSM. Ureaplasma infection was the most prevalent STI found in both men and women and was associated with oral sexual contact. In heterosexual pairs, condom use during anal sex occurred less than 10% of the time. CONCLUSIONS: The heterosexual couples in sexually transmitted disease clinics have high-risk behaviors and STIs are frequent. The educational effort concerning prevention of STIs requires higher effort.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".