The continuing evolution of research on sexually transmitted infections among men who have sex with men
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The past quarter century has seen an exponential growth in both the quantity and quality of research on sexually transmitted infections (STI) among men who have sex with men (MSM). This development has been in response to the substantial public health need for this research as distinct epidemics of STIs have emerged and become highly prevalent within MSM communities over the past 25 years. In addition, the challenges posed by the global AIDS epidemic have contributed in no small degree to the urgency with which researchers seek to find innovative ways to control STI epidemics among MSM. It has now become abundantly clear that if researchers can demonstrate the effectiveness of new approaches to the prevention, control and treatment of STI epidemics, important contributions will be made not only to the health of MSM communities but also the larger communities in which MSM reside. The challenge of finding effective responses to STI epidemics among MSM is made more difficult by the adverse social and cultural settings in which MSM communities are often located.1 These hostile social settings, as well as the sexual risk and sexual partner turnover patterns found within many MSM communities,2 mean that standard approaches to STI control may need to be tailored if they are to be effective. Because the constellation of factors that drive STI epidemics among MSM is often unique, culturally competent approaches to public health practice, research design, theory and even clinical management must be developed and tested for effectiveness within these populations. Thus, both the substantial public health need for this research focus and the complexity of this research agenda suggests that the continuing evolution of a sub-specialty in STI research among MSM will serve the public’s health well. This special issue has been designed to further this goal and this …
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 | 0.046 | 0.115 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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".