Sexually transmissible infections among female sex workers in Amsterdam between 2011 and 2016: does risk vary by work location?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Female sex workers (FSW) are at risk for sexually transmissible infections (STI). This study aimed to investigate whether the risk for chlamydia and gonorrhoea differs by work location among FSW in Amsterdam. Additionally, trends in STI positivity rates between 2011 and 2016 were assessed. METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of routinely collected clinical data during STI consultations of FSW by the Prostitution and Healthcare Centre (P&G292). Work location was categorised as window prostitution, escorts/homeworkers, clubs/brothels/private houses/massage salons and other. RESULTS: In total, 7558 STI consultations of 2529 FSW in the period 2011-16 were included. Positivity rates for chlamydia and gonorrhoea were 6.6% and 2.0%, respectively. Infectious hepatitis B virus, syphilis and HIV were diagnosed in <0.2% of consultations. Positivity rates of chlamydia and rectal gonorrhoea differed significantly by work location (P < 0.001). Genital and rectal chlamydia and rectal gonorrhoea were significantly less likely among women working in window prostitution, except for the other-group. Risk factors for STI did not vary by work location. Among women working in window prostitution, positivity rates for oropharyngeal and genital chlamydia and genital gonorrhoea were significantly decreasing between 2011 and 2016 (P trend <0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The higher STI positivity among escorts/homeworkers and FSW in clubs/brothels/private houses/massage salons emphasises the need for extra attention to improve condom use and STI testing in this group. Factors associated with STI did not vary by work location, thus interventions, including those used by P&G292, to reduce STI risk, can be used for women at all work locations.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".