MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2587882991 · doi:10.1093/ofid/ofw172.1020

Trichomonas vaginalis (TV) Prevalence and Correlates in Alberta Sexually Transmitted Infection (STI) Clinic Attendees

2016· article· en· W2587882991 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jennifer Gratrix, Sabrina S. Plitt, LeeAnn Turnbull, Petra Smyczek, Judith Brandley, Ron Scarrott, Prenilla Naidu, Penny Parker, Brenda Blore, Amy Bull, Sandy Shokoples, Lindsay Bertholet, Max Chernesky, Ron Read, Ameeta E. Singh

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Forum Infectious Diseases · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicReproductive tract infections research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaMcMaster UniversityProvincial Laboratory of Public HealthPublic Health Agency of CanadaAlberta Health Services
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTrichomonas vaginalisMedicineTrichomonasTrichomoniasisTrichomonas VaginitisFamily medicineDemographyGynecology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background. Global estimates of Trichomonas vaginalis (TV) prevalence are variable with few Canadian studies. Methods. Specimens collected from January to April, 2016 for gonorrhea (NG) and Chlamydia (CT) screening from urogenital sites among male and female attendees (>17 years old) at two Alberta STI Clinics were tested for TV. The Gen-Probe Aptima Trichomonas vaginalis Assay (Gen-Probe Inc, San Diego, California) was used to test endocervical, vaginal and urine specimens. For a female sub-population, test results from endocervical and urine specimens collected on the same individuals at the same visit were compared and the proportion of discordant results was calculated. Descriptive analysis of individuals was completed using IBM SPSS Statistics version 19.0 (IBM, Armonk, NY). Results. A total of 2273 individuals were tested. Just over one-half (53.6%; n = 1218) were males, of which 355 (29%) were men who have sex with men (MSM); all tested via urine samples. The male TV prevalence was 0.2% (n = 3); all male cases were asymptomatic, and heterosexual. The male prevalence for CT was 5.8% and NG was 1.8%. The overall TV prevalence for females, combining endocervical/vaginal and urine results, was 2.8% (n = 29), CT was 5.7% (n = 60), and NG was 1.8% (n = 19). Only 6/29 (21%) female specimens positive using the Gen-Probe Aptima TV test were positive by wet mount. The TV prevalence among symptomatic women rose to 5.3% (21/397). Correlates associated with TV infection among females were older age (30y versus 27y, p = 0.04), Aboriginal ethnicity (41.4% versus 11.0%, p < 0.001), being symptomatic (72.4% versus 38.1%; p < 0.001), and requiring a pelvic exam (65.5% versus 41.9%; p = 0.01). There was high concordance of results between urine and cervical swabs (99.2%); the three (0.8%) specimens that were negative by urine were positive by swabs. Conclusion. Our study showed a prevalence of TV of 2.5% in female attendees at two Canadian STI Clinics, which is at the lower end of the range reported in other studies (0.3-30%), but between that of chlamydia and gonorrhea. No cases were identified among MSM and prevalence was very low (0.2%) in heterosexual males, all of whom were asymptomatic. The use of wet mount as a screening test in females would have missed more than 75% of female TV cases. Disclosures. P. Naidu, Hologic Inc: Investigator, Research support and Unrestricted educational grant provided to AMMI-CACMID to pay for accommodation and travel to national meeting; M. Chernesky, Hologic Inc: Research Contractor and Speaker's Bureau, Research support; A. Singh, Hologic Inc: Speaker at sponsored symposium, Travel and accommodation to meeting paid by unrestricted educational grant to AMMI CACMID

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.062
Threshold uncertainty score0.125

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.289 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen Forum Infectious DiseasesSame topicReproductive tract infections researchFrench-language works237,207