Incidence and Treatment Outcomes of Pharyngeal <i>Neisseria gonorrhoeae</i> and <i>Chlamydia trachomatis</i> Infections in Men Who Have Sex with Men: A 13‐Year Retrospective Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study investigated the incidence and treatment outcomes of pharyngeal Neisseria gonorrhoeae and Chlamydia trachomatis cases at a Canadian clinic that mainly serves men who have sex with men. METHODS: All patients with pharyngeal N. gonorrhoeae and C. trachomatis infections detected from 1 January 1995 through 31 December 2007 were identified. Original and test-of-cure N. gonorrhoeae culture isolates were compared using antibiotic susceptibility testing and N. gonorrhoeae multiantigen sequence typing. RESULTS: One hundred seventy-eight cases of pharyngeal N. gonorrhoeae infection and 97 cases of pharyngeal C. trachomatis infection were identified, primarily by culture methods. The mean incidence was 1.62 and 0.81 cases per 1000 visits per year for N. gonorrhoeae and C. trachomatis infection, respectively. Poisson regression modeling demonstrated a statistically significant surge of pharyngeal N. gonorrhoeae cases in 2007 after controlling for seasonal and long-term oscillation and long-term linear trends. Among patients with pharyngeal N. gonorrhoeae and C. trachomatis infection, 60.2% and 84.3%, respectively, would have been missed by relying on urine and urethral testing. Nine percent of patients with pharyngeal N. gonorrhoeae and 4.3% of patients with pharyngeal C. trachomatis infection who underwent test-of-cure procedures had at least 1 positive result. Antibiograms were not different in 8 of 10 pretreatment and posttreatment N. gonorrhoeae isolate pairs. N. gonorrhoeae multiantigen sequence typing results were identical in 2 of these cases. Public health records documented abstinence in both individuals. CONCLUSIONS: Nine percent of cases with pharyngeal N. gonorrhoeae and 4.3% of cases with pharyngeal C. trachomatis infection that underwent tests of cure had positive results. Available typing results suggest antibiotic treatment failure rather than reinfection. Specific antibiotic treatment regimens for pharyngeal N. gonorrhoeae and C. trachomatis infections need to be developed and formally evaluated.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".