Pediatric Anogenital Warts: A 7‐Year Review of Children Referred to a Tertiary‐Care Hospital in Montreal, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objectives of this study were to delineate the clinical characteristics of a hospital-referred pediatric population infected with anogenital warts and to investigate the possible relationships between human papillomavirus types and the identified clinical characteristics. Over a 7-year period, 72 patients under the age of 12 years were seen at our dermatology clinic for anogenital warts, corresponding to a prevalence of 1.7/1000 in our patient population. Sixty-four percent (46/72) were girls. Congenital, prenatal, ascending infections occurred in two subjects. The onset of anogenital warts occurred before age 2 in 28% and between 2 and 6 years of age in 62% of children and tended to be younger in boys. We identified unusual cutaneomucosal serotypes human papillomavirus 7 and 57 (three and eight instances, respectively). The modes of transmission of anogenital warts in children cannot be identified either by the clinical appearance of the lesions or by human papillomavirus typing. We conclude that the best way to identify possible sexual abuse is still by history taking, careful assessment of the socio-clinical context, and physical examination.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".