P04.23 Mind the gap! biological and behavioural concurrency and their potential for sti transmission in the british population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<h3>Background</h3> Key drivers for STI transmission are the number of sexual partners and their timing. Concurrent partnerships are a known risk factor but non-overlapping (serially monogamous) partnerships may be biologically concurrent for some STIs where infectious periods extend across the ‘gap’. We examine recent partnership histories among people aged 16–44y in Britain and how they relate to reported STI diagnoses. <h3>Methods</h3> Analyses of data collected for Britain’s third National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles, a probability survey undertaken 2010–2012 with 9,902 people aged 16–44y. Computer-assisted self-interviews included questions about participants’ 3 most recent partners and STI diagnosis history. Gaps between partners were calculated from the dates of most recent sex with a former partner and first sex with the next partner. <h3>Results</h3> Over 90% of men and women reported >=1 partners in the past 5y, of whom, 51.2% (men) and 42.5% (women) reported >=2 partners during this time and so had had >=1 gaps (total: 7, 724 gaps). The median gap was 2 months (IQR:-3 to 8 months) with two-thirds of all gaps >=1 month denoting serial monogamy. One-quarter (95% CI: 23.8%–26.2%) of all gaps were 0–3 months, while 21.8% (95% CI: 20.7%–22.9%) were >=12 months. In multivariable analyses which adjusted for total partner numbers (past 5y), reported STI diagnoses (past 5y) were as common among participants whose recent partners had been concurrent as serially monogamous participants where the gap was < = 4 months among men: 10.3% (95% CI: 7.6%–13.9%) <i>vs. </i>11.3% (95% CI: 8.9%–14.3%), and < = 12 months among women: 12.3% (95% CI: 9.2%–16.3%) <i>vs. </i>11.5% (95% CI: 9.7%–13.6%). <h3>Conclusion</h3> While people in Britain have few partners on average and the majority with multiple partners are serially monogamous, the gap between partners is often shorter than the infectious period of common STIs and so effectively biologically concurrent. STI prevention efforts need to address this and should encourage STI testing prior to unprotected sex with new partners, even if serially monogamous. <h3>Disclosure of interest statement</h3> AMJ has been a Governor of the Wellcome Trust since 2011. The other authors declare that they 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) | 0.000 | 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".