MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2899846246

Prevalencia de Chlamydia trachomatis en Trabajadoras Sexuales: Revisiandoacute;n Sistemandaacute;tica

2018· article· es· W2899846246 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Luis Alfonso Tuberquia Lozano, Laura Isabel Zapata Orozco, Jaiberth Antonio Cardona‐Arias

Bibliographic record

VenueArchivos de Medicina · 2018
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFeminism, Gender, and Social Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArtGynecologyMedicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduccion: Chlamydia trachomatis es la segunda infeccion de transmision sexual en el mundo, siendo las trabajadoras sexuales un grupo de riesgo para su diseminacion. Objetivo: Determinar la prevalencia de Chlamydia trachomatis en trabajadoras sexuales, con base en estudios publicados entre 1980 y 2017. Metodos: Revision sistematica con una busqueda exhaustiva y reproducible de la literatura cientifica. Se aplicaron las fases de la guia PRISMA y se evaluo la calidad metodologica con STROBE. La descripcion de los estudios se realizo con frecuencias; se estimo la prevalencia global de infeccion asi como prevalencias especificas por pais, periodo, muestra y grupo etario, en SPSS 24.0 y EPIDAT 3.1. Resultados: Se incluyeron 57 estudios con una poblacion de 46.370 trabajadoras en quienes se hallo una prevalencia de 14,6% (IC95%=14,3-15,0). Los paises que registraron la mayor prevalencia fueron Iran con 94,2%, Canada 82,9%, Tunez con 72,9%, Cambodia 72,2% y Camerun 39,3%. En las prevalencias especificas fue mayor la reportada en 1980-1990 (45,1%), por continente fue menor en Europa (6,9%). Se hallaron diferencias estadisticamente significativas en la prevalencia de adolescentes (82,9%) y adultos (94,2) en comparacion con los jovenes (13,4%). Con base en la muestra fue mayor en suero o sangre (39,15%). Conclusiones: Se hallo una elevada prevalencia C. trachomatis en trabajadoras sexuales, lo que evidencia la importancia de focalizar intervenciones en este grupo. Se reporto una elevada heterogeneidad en las prevalencias especificas lo que afianza la necesidad de disponer de estudios locales para cada poblacion en la cual se pretenda la implementacion de acciones sanitarias.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.072

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0070.011
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.341 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchivos de MedicinaSame topicFeminism, Gender, and Social IssuesFrench-language works237,207