The growing epidemic of sexually transmitted infections in adolescents: a neglected population
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it