P04.06 Partner number and outcomes of partner notification among gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men with infectious syphilis in british columbia, canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<h3>Background</h3> Since 2010, infectious syphilis (IS) cases in British Columbia (BC) have increased 4-fold among gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM). In BC, all syphilis cases and partner notification (PN) are managed centrally. We describe trends in PN outcomes from 2010–2013. <h3>Methods</h3> We conducted chart reviews on a random sample (n = 350) representing 33% (350/1054) of all IS cases among MSM in BC from 2010–2013. We described trends in number of anonymous and notifiable partners, proportions notified and tested, and test outcomes. <h3>Results</h3> The 350 cases (44% primary/secondary, 56% early latent) reported 1942 partners; 1131 (58%, range 46–67%) partners were notifiable. From 2010–2013, the number of partners per case increased (average 5 to 8; 6% to 16% reported ≥10 partners). Of the 1131 notifiable partners, 936 (83%) were notified: 638 (56%) by the case, 252 (22%) by a healthcare provider (HCP), and 46 (4%) by other means (e.g., referred to another jurisdiction). From 2010–2013, the proportion of case-notified partners was stable while the proportion of HCP-notified partners decreased (43% to 19%). Of the 936 partners notified, 287 (31%) were known to be tested (21% [133/638] of case-notified and 54% [135/252] of HCP-notified partners). Of these, 62 (22%) partners tested positive and were treated. From 2010–2013, the proportion of partners known to be tested decreased, primarily due to a decrease among case-notified partners (46% to 15%). <h3>Conclusion</h3> Overall 83% of notifiable partners were notified. Challenges to PN among MSM in BC include anonymous partners, the increasing number of partners to be notified, and documentation of outcomes for case-notified partners. While self-notification appears to be preferred by many MSM, partner testing may be lower in this group. Strategies to encourage partner testing (whether case or HCP-notified) are needed and may be best focused on MSM with more partners. <h3>Disclosure of interest statement</h3> The BC Centre for Disease Control is a provincial public health agency which has a responsibility for surveillance of communicable diseases, including HIV and sexually transmitted infections. No external funding was received for this study. All authors have no conflicts of interest.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".