Patterns of syphilis testing in a large cohort of HIV patients in Ontario, Canada, 2000–2009
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Since 2000, reported syphilis cases increased ten-fold in Canada, particularly among men who have sex with men (MSM) co-infected with HIV. We characterized temporal patterns of of syphilis testing in a large cohort of HIV patients in Ontario, Canada. METHODS: We analyzed data from a multi-site cohort of people in HIV care from 2000 to 2009. Data were obtained from medical charts, interviews and record linkage with the syphilis test database at the Public Health Ontario Laboratories. We estimated the proportion that had syphilis testing at least once per year and the period and annual prevalence of reactive tests. RESULTS: Among 4232 participants, the annual proportion tested rose from 2.7% (95%CI 1.9, 3.5) in 2000 to 54.6% (95%CI 52.9, 56.3) in 2009. Testing was most common for participants who were men who have sex with men (MSM), aged <30, recently diagnosed with HIV, were antiretroviral treatment naive, had routine HIV lab testing at least twice in that year, or tested for syphilis in the preceding year. The proportion with at least one reactive test in 2000-09 was 21.0% (95%CI 19.4, 22.7) for MSM, 5.3% (95%CI 3.3, 7.4) for non-MSM males, and 2.6% (95%CI 1.2, 4.0) for women. Among MSM, the annual prevalence of reactive syphilis tests with high RPR titre (≥1:16) peaked at 3.8% in 2009. CONCLUSIONS: The burden of syphilis co-infection rose considerably among HIV-positive MSM, such that by 2009, at least 1 in 5 men had laboratory evidence of current or past infection. Interventions may be needed to boost syphilis testing to achieve goals set by guidelines even in settings with universal health care.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".