Illustrated Instructions for Self-Collection of Anorectal Swab Specimens and Their Adequacy for Cytological Examination
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Brief Background: Self-collection of anorectal swab specimens would facilitate screening for anal cancer precursors and sexually transmitted rectal infections among men who have sex with men (MSM). However, pictorial guides for self-collection were not previously available. Goals: Develop and field test a set of illustrated self-collection instructions. Design: Cross-sectional study of community-recruited MSM who were naïve with regard to collection of specimens for anal cytology. Results: Among 222 self- and clinician-collected swab pairs provided by mostly human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-1 seronegative MSM (median age, 31.5 years), most specimens were adequate for cytologic evaluation, though self-collected swabs were less likely to be so (83% versus 92%, P = <0.001). The illustrated instructions were reportedly essential, but having used them, men rated their understanding of the self-collection procedure as very high. Conclusions: Provided with illustrated instructions, most MSM who are naïve to the technique can self-collect anorectal swab specimens that are suitable for screening. These illustrated instructions for self-collection of anorectal swab specimens may facilitate screening for anal cancer precursors and sexually transmitted bacterial infections in men who have sex with men.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".