Women Find It Easy and Prefer to Collect Their Own Vaginal Swabs to Diagnose Chlamydia trachomatis or Neisseria gonorrhoeae Infections
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Self-collected specimens can be used to screen asymptomatic women for Chlamydia trachomatis (CT) and Neisseria gonorrhoeae (GC). We surveyed women's opinions on ease and preferences as to sampling after collecting their own vaginal swab and urine and a physician collection of vaginal swab and cervical swab. METHODS: In 7 North American cities, a questionnaire was used for women after they participated in a clinical trial of nucleic acid amplification testing of various specimens. A total of 1,090 women consenting to gynecologic sampling for CT and GC (82% of those sampled) volunteered to complete the survey. We analyzed the data for ease of self-collection and preferences for a vaginal swab, urine, or cervical swab. RESULTS: The average age was 26.6 years; 59.6% were black, 25.5% white, 11% Hispanic, 1.9% Asian, and 2% unknown. Thirty-five percent had more than one sex partner in the past 6 months, 84.9% had been previously tested for a sexually transmitted infection (STI), and 49.2% had experienced an STI. A total of 90.4% found it very easy to self-collect a vaginal swab. This was not influenced by age, education, or study site. Seventy-six percent preferred a vaginal swab over a pelvic examination, 60% over a urine collection, and 94% indicated that they would be tested more often if a vaginal swab was available. CONCLUSION: Self-collected vaginal swabs were easy to collect and patients preferred them over urine and cervical swabs.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 it