MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2793037509 · doi:10.14745/ccdr.v44i02a04

Lymphogranuloma venereum in Quebec: Re-emergence among men who have sex with men

2018· article· en· W2793037509 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
CA Boutin, Simon Venne, Marc Fiset, Claude Fortin, D. P. Murphy, Alberto Severini, Christine Martineau, Jean Longtin, A-C Labbé

Bibliographic record

VenueCanada Communicable Disease Report · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicReproductive tract infections research
Canadian institutionsPublic Health Agency of CanadaMinistry of Health and Social ServicesUniversité de Montréal
FundersMinistère de la SantéMinistère de la Santé et des Services sociaux
KeywordsMen who have sex with menLymphogranuloma venereumMedicineDemographyGonorrheaIncidence (geometry)ChlamydiaSyphilisChlamydia trachomatisPopulationTransmission (telecommunications)GynecologyHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)Environmental healthVirologyImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: . This LGV is associated with significant morbidity and increased risk of HIV transmission. While fewer than two cases per year were reported in Quebec before 2005, LGV emerged in 2005-2006 with 69 cases, followed by a period of low incidence (2007-2012), and subsequent re-emergence since 2013. OBJECTIVES: To describe the incidence of LGV in Quebec and the characteristics of the affected population, including demographics and risk factors, clinical manifestations, laboratory tests, treatments and reinfection rates. METHODS: Descriptive data were collected from the notifiable diseases records through the Institut national de santé publique du Québec (INSPQ) infocentre portal. Questionnaires were obtained through the enhanced surveillance system and transmitted anonymously to the Quebec Ministry of Health. In-depth analysis was performed on cases from 2013 to 2016. RESULTS: The re-emergence of LGV in Quebec involves an urban subpopulation composed almost exclusively of MSM with STIs, who have a high number of partners and often use drugs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.087
Threshold uncertainty score0.972

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations16
Published2018
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanada Communicable Disease ReportSame topicReproductive tract infections researchFrench-language works237,207