Management of gonococcal infection among adults and youth: New key recommendations.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To provide recommendations on the management of gonococcal infection among adults and youth. QUALITY OF EVIDENCE: Treatment recommendations in the Canadian guidelines on sexually transmitted infections are based on review of the literature, as well as the grades of recommendations and the levels of evidence quality determined by a minimum of 2 reviewers. The recommendations are peer-reviewed and require approval by the expert working group. MAIN MESSAGE: The new key recommendations for managing gonococcal infection among adults and youth include using culture as a diagnostic tool when practical, providing treatment with combination antibiotic therapy (ceftriaxone combined with azithromycin), and promptly reporting all cases with treatment failure to public health. CONCLUSION: Following these new key recommendations might reduce treatment failure, contribute to better surveillance of antibiotic-resistance trends in Neisseria gonorrhoeae, and contribute to the prevention of transmission of multidrug-resistant gonorrhea.
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 | 0.016 | 0.066 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.006 |
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".