MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3008289917 · doi:10.1097/jxx.0000000000000370

Development of an algorithm to facilitate the clinical management of syphilis

2020· article· en· W3008289917 on OpenAlexaffabout
Lauren Orser, Patrick O’Byrne, Andrée Bourgault, Nicole Scherling

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSyphilis Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsOttawa Public HealthUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSyphilisMedicineNurse practitionersComputer scienceFamily medicineHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)Health carePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Syphilis staging is important to determine treatment, post-treatment monitoring, and sexual partner follow-up. Many prescribers find syphilis staging to be challenging. Current guidelines for the management of patients diagnosed with syphilis provide little direction aside from an overview of some common symptoms and directing providers to stage cases in conjunction with experienced colleagues. LOCAL PROBLEM: In Canada and the United States, the rate of infectious syphilis has increased noticeably since 2000. Given the increase in rates of syphilis, it is important for all clinicians to understand how to appropriately manage patient care to reduce rates of infection. METHODS AND INTERVENTIONS: A clinical algorithm was developed to stage infectious syphilis. This was tested among nurse practitioners and physicians in a sexually transmitted infection clinic. The algorithm was developed based on a review of the available United States, Canadian, and British practice guidelines. RESULTS: Project results demonstrated that this resource could be a relevant practice tool for providers in multiple clinical settings to ensure that patients receive appropriate diagnosis, staging, and treatment of syphilis infection. A case study of a patient who presented to the clinic as a contact is used to review the algorithm and demonstrate the appropriate clinical management of patients. CONCLUSIONS: The algorithm appropriately guided practice and was useful to clinicians.

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)0.045
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.045
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.003

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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.299 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Association of Nurse PractitionersSame topicSyphilis Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207