MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2915399039

2010 European guideline for the management of chancroid

2010· article· en· W2915399039 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Michael Kemp, Jens Jørgen Christensen, Stephan Lautenschlager, Martí Vall Mayans, Harald Moi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGenital Health and Disease
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVenereologyMedicineGuidelineChancroidFamily medicineUniversity hospitalLibrary scienceCatalanHumanitiesDermatologyArt
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chancroid is a sexually transmitted infection (STI) caused by the small Gram-negative bacterium Haemophilus ducreyi. Recommendations for the diagnosis and management of chancroid has been given by a number of different institutions, including Centers for Dis-eases Control and Prevention1, British Association for Sexual Health and HIV2, and Pub-lic Health Agency of Canada3. In contrast to genital herpes the number of cases of chancroid is overall decreasing, and the eradication of chancroid is considered a feasible objective4. However, chancroid is still a cause of genital ulcers in resource poor countries, especially in South East Asia and Africa (e.g. Botswana5), where outbreaks have been occurring among sex workers in the cities, including capitals such as Nairobi6. Europeans may contract the disease while stay-ing in these areas. As a number of persons travel from high-risk areas to work in the sex industry in Europe, the possibility of contracting chancroid in European countries should be considered. Us-ing an improved culture medium, Hafaz et al.7 found a higher number of chancroid cases than expected in Sheffield, and also demonstrated that many of the patients had concur-

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.061

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0040.001
Research integrity0.0060.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.016

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.304 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGenital Health and DiseaseFrench-language works237,207