The growing epidemic of sexually transmitted infections in adolescents: a neglected population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Sexually transmitted infection (STI) incidence is on the rise in the United States. The increase is especially pronounced in adolescents (15-24 years of age). Despite making up only a quarter of the population, adolescents account for approximately half of new STIs in the United States every year. This review summarizes recent developments in the field of STIs, excluding HIV, in adolescents. RECENT FINDINGS: In this review, we examine the epidemiology, screening, management, and prevention of STIs in adolescents. STI rates in adolescents have been rising since 2014, with young women and MSM at particularly high risk. Barriers to STI screening for adolescents include confidentiality concerns and lack of access to health services. Prevention through STI vaccines represents a promising way to combat the epidemic. SUMMARY: STIs are a growing concern for adolescents. Routine screening and management are of critical importance. Furthermore, prevention efforts such as human papillomavirus vaccination should be prioritized. Much of the current literature on STIs does not address the unique nature of STIs in adolescents, and additional research into effective prevention and treatment strategies of STIs in adolescents is urgently needed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".