Benefit of adjunct universal rectal screening for Chlamydia genital infections in women attending Canadian sexually transmitted infection clinics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adding universal rectal screening to urogenital screening should positively impact rectal Chlamydia trachomatis (CT) incidence in affected populations. A dynamic Markov model was used to evaluate costs and outcomes of three rectal CT screening strategies among women attending sexually transmitted infection clinics in Alberta, Canada: universal urogenital-only screening (UG-only), additional selected (exposure-based) rectal screening (UG+SR), and additional universal rectal screening (UG+UR). The model included two mutually exclusive health states: infected and susceptible. Additionally, the model included two rounds of transmission: male sex partners of women infected with rectal-only CT and female sex partners of those men. CT complications impacting patients' quality of life (QALY) were considered. Alberta and Canadian data were used to estimate model inputs. We used a health care perspective, a time period of 10 years, and a discount rate of 3% for analyses. Compared to UG-only screening, the incremental cost effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were CA$34,000 and CA$49,000 per QALY gained for UG+SR and UG+UR screening strategies, respectively. Compared to UG+SR, the ICER was CA$62,000 per QALY gained for the UG+UR strategy. Both adjunct selected and universal rectal screening strategies are cost effective compared to UG-only screening, and UG+UR screening is cost effective when compared to UG+SR screening.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".