LBP-1.14 Genital warts: Canadians' perception and health related behaviours
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background A high level of anxiety is associated with a diagnosis of genital warts but health-related behaviours are less well known. Objective To gauge the perceptions of Canadians towards genital warts and associated treatments. Methods A survey supported by an unrestricted grant from Graceway Canada was conducted in February 2011 by Leger Marketing using their online panel (LegerWeb). It included 17 questions (2 multiple-choice, 15 4-point rating from strongly agree to strongly disagree]) relating to genital wart perception plus nine demographic questions. Results The survey was completed by 1520 Canadian adults aged 18–75+ years, of which 52% were female. Fifty-two per cent of respondents stated that they would monitor an unrecognised spot on their genitals and only seek medical assistance if it did not go away. Only 43% said they would stop having sex until the spots were gone. Concerns of being judged by friends/family were high (44%). Regarding prevention, 32% of respondents believed that monogamy would protect against genital warts, and 25% believed they are not at risk if they use a condom. Treatment preference was in favour of a cream rather than an invasive treatment (58%), particularly among younger (67%) and male respondents (63%). Over 60% would worry that genital warts could not be resolved. Women were less likely to believe that genital warts could be cured (13% vs 23%), and more likely to believe that they would recur (46% vs 42%) see Abstract LBP-1.14 Figure 1. Conclusion Among Canadians, genital warts were associated with a fair degree of social stigma and worries regarding their resolution, and future recurrences. Non-invasive treatment options were preferred. Abstract LBP-1.14 Figure 1
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 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 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) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".