Evidence for Increased Chlamydia Case Finding After the Introduction of Rectal Screening Among Women Attending 2 Canadian Sexually Transmitted Infection Clinics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Chlamydia trachomatis is the most common notifiable disease in Canada, and extragenital sites are believed to serve as hidden reservoirs for ongoing transmission of infection. There are no specific Canadian screening guidelines for asymptomatic individuals from extragenital sites. We sought to determine the prevalence and factors associated with rectal C. trachomatis among female sexually transmitted infection (STI) clinic attendees in Alberta, Canada. METHODS: Between 20 July and 31 December 2012, all female attendees at 2 Provincial STI clinics receiving a pelvic examination, regardless of a history of anal intercourse, were screened for rectal C. trachomatis using the Gen-Probe Aptima COMBO 2 Assay. Demographic and behavior variables were compared between rectal-only chlamydia cases and genitourinary cases using χ(2) or Fisher exact test, Mann-Whitney test, and logistic regression. RESULTS: A total of 3055 women were screened for rectal chlamydia. The prevalence of rectal chlamydia ranged from 11.7% to 13.5%. There were 133 rectal-only cases, increasing case detection by 44.3% from 300 genitourinary cases to 433 total cases, ranging from 21.7% to 88.2% by clinic. Women who were a contact to an STI were less likely to have rectal-only chlamydia for both clinics (P ≤ .001). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings add to the growing body of evidence supporting universal rectal screening in high-risk women such as those undergoing pelvic exams at STI clinics.
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 | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".