Approach to lymphogranuloma venereum.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To review the literature about lymphogranuloma venereum (LGV) and to provide an overview and discussion of practice guidelines. SOURCES OF INFORMATION: The terms Chlamydia trachomatis and lymphogranuloma venereum were searched separately in PubMed. Empirical studies, practice reviews, and clinical guidelines were included. All reference lists were reviewed for additional articles. MAIN MESSAGE: Since 2003, there has been a resurgence of LGV among men who have sex with men in many Western countries, including Canada. Although LGV is a serovar of Chlamydia trachomatis (serovar L), it can invade regional lymph nodes, and consequently presents with different symptoms than the other subtypes of chlamydia (serovars A through K). Specifically, LGV transitions through 3 phases: a painless papule or ulcer at the site of inoculation; invasion of the regional lymph nodes, which can present with an inguinal or rectal syndrome; and irreversible destruction of lymph tissue. In contrast, chlamydia serovars A to K exclusively produce superficial mucosal infections. Lymphogranuloma venereum also requires a different treatment regimen than other chlamydia serovars. CONCLUSION: In light of the current resurgence of LGV, its unique symptoms and clinical course, and its requirement for a different treatment than other chlamydia serovars, it is important for primary care providers to recognize when LGV should be included as an appropriate differential diagnosis.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".