Gonococcal Conjunctivitis in Adults: Case Report and Retrospective Review of Cases in Alberta, Canada, 2000–2016
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A case of gonococcal conjunctivitis (GC) prompted us to review the reported cases and treatment regimens of GC in Alberta, Canada. METHODS: Gonococcal cases reported from 2000 to 2016 were extracted from the provincial sexually transmitted infection reporting database. The diagnosis of GC was based on a positive culture and/or nucleic acid amplification test from the eye. RESULTS: A total of 45 cases of GC were reported in adults. Three quarters (75.6%; n = 34) of the cases were diagnosed using culture, 57.8% (n = 26) of cases were among men, and 55.5% (n = 25) were diagnosed since 2014. Very few (13.3%; n = 6) of the cases were treated according to current Canadian Guidelines on Sexually Transmitted Infections, using 2 g of ceftriaxone in combination with azithromycin or doxycycline. Results of test of cures were available for 15.6% (n = 7) of the cases and occurred within 10 to 79 days (median = 26 days) after treatment; all were negative. CONCLUSIONS: Gonococcal conjunctivitis was relatively uncommon in our region, but given its potential for severe manifestations and sequelae coupled with the rising rates of gonorrhea; it remains important to consider this diagnosis in sexually active individuals presenting with purulent conjunctivitis. Additional studies are needed to inform treatment recommendations and to evaluate outcomes of infection.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".