MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Outbreak of Neisseria gonorrhoeae in Northern Alberta, Canada

2003· article· en· W2081179913 on OpenAlexaffabout
Prithwish De, Ameeta E. Singh, Tom Wong, Wadieh Yacoub

Bibliographic record

VenueSexually Transmitted Diseases · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicReproductive tract infections research
Canadian institutionsAlberta HealthHealth Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGonorrheaMedicineOutbreakNeisseria gonorrhoeaeEpidemiologyPsychological interventionCasualPublic healthEnvironmental healthEtiologyDemographyFamily medicineVirologyNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: In January 2001 we investigated an outbreak of Neisseria gonorrhoeae in a northern region of Alberta, Canada, and here we report on the epidemiology of the outbreak. GOAL: The goal was to examine the outbreak etiology and make recommendations for strengthening regional STD programs. STUDY DESIGN: Provincial STD notification forms were reviewed to identify cases, and a case-control study was undertaken to identify risk factors for infection. RESULTS: Gonorrhea was reported among 81 individuals, aged 15 to 60 years, between January 1999 and March 2001 in 8 neighboring communities. Attendance at a public bar in one community was associated with infection (P < 0.01). Cases were predominantly Aboriginal (96.3%) and aged less than 30 years (77.6%), and at least 39% of cases reported multiple sex partners. Casual partnering and extended sexual networks are believed to have influenced the spread of infection. CONCLUSION: This study emphasizes the importance of site-specific health interventions to effectively target at-risk individuals at high-risk locations, with preventive measures aimed at members of high-risk sexual networks. Effective interventions must ensure the availability of and access to appropriate health services for all residents of northern regions in Alberta.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.357
Threshold uncertainty score0.921

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.231 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSexually Transmitted DiseasesSame topicReproductive tract infections researchFrench-language works237,207