Effect of screening young men for <i>Chlamydia trachomatis</i> on the rates among women: a network modelling study for high-prevalence communities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: (Ct) is the most commonly reported sexually transmitted infection in the USA and causes important reproductive morbidity in women. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommend routine screening of sexually active women under age 25 but not among men. Despite three decades of screening women, chlamydia prevalence in women remains high. Untested and untreated men can serve as a reservoir of infection in women, and male-screening based intervention can be an effective strategy to reduce infection in women. We assessed the impact of screening men on the Ct prevalence in women. DESIGN: We created an individual-based network model to simulate a realistic chlamydia epidemic on sexual contact networks for a synthetic population (n=5000). The model is calibrated to the ongoing routine screening among African American (AA) women in the USA and detailed a male-screening programme, Check It, that bundles best practices for Ct control. We used sensitivity analysis to quantify the relative importance of each intervention component. SETTING: Community-based venues in New Orleans, Louisiana, USA. PARTICIPANTS: Heterosexual AA men, aged 15 to 24, who had sex with women in the past 2 months. INTERVENTION: Venue-based screening, expedited index treatment, expedited partner treatment and rescreening. RESULTS: We estimate that by annually screening 7.5% of the AA male population in the age-range, the chlamydia prevalence would be reduced relatively by 8.1% (95% CI 5.9% to 10.4%) in AA women and 8.8% (95% CI 6.9% to 10.8%) in AA men. Each man screened could prevent 0.062 (95% CI 0.030 to 0.094) cases in men and 0.204 (95% CI 0.143 to 0.267) cases in women. The model suggested the importance of intervention components ranked from high to low as venue-based screening, expedited index treatment, expedited partner treatment and rescreening. CONCLUSION: The findings indicated that male-screening has the potential to substantially reduce the prevalence among women in high-prevalence communities.
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 | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".