Biological and Behavioral Factors Associated With Positive Chlamydia Retests
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Repeat chlamydia detection after treatment is common, and there is concern that treatment failure may be a cause. METHODS: Within a randomized trial, we established a prospective cohort of 600 participants with anogenital chlamydia diagnoses (200 each of women, heterosexual men, and men who have sex with men [MSM]). Participants were invited for repeat testing at 3 months and to complete a behavioral survey at 4 months. Positive samples were analyzed for organism DNA load and genovar. We estimated repeat chlamydia positivity, reinfection and treatment failure rates, and investigated the biological and behavioral factors associated with a repeat positive test. RESULTS: A total of 290 participants (100 women, 89 heterosexual men, 101 MSM) were retested at 1 to 4 months, with 43 repeat positives, including 26 classed as reinfection and 9 as treatment failures. Comparing MSM with heterosexual men and women combined, repeat positivity was higher (20.8% vs 11.6%, P = 0.04), and treatment failure was higher (6.9% vs 1.1%, P = 0.01), but there was no difference in reinfection rates (11.9% vs 7.4%, P = 0.21). Among MSM, the odds of repeat positivity increased by 90% with each additional log organism load in the original specimen (baseline) (adjusted odds ratio, 1.9; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-3.2). Among heterosexuals, the odds of repeat positivity decreased by 10% with each additional week delay in being retested for chlamydia (adjusted odds ratio, 0.9; 95% confidence interval, 0.8-0.9). CONCLUSIONS: Positive retests were more common among MSM than heterosexuals. Treatment failure was more common in MSM with rectal chlamydia, reinforcing concerns about azithromycin treatment failure.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".