Validation of a Clinical Prediction Rule to Predict Asymptomatic Chlamydia and Gonorrhea Infections Among Internet-Based Testers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Clinical prediction rules (CPRs) can be used in sexually transmitted infection (STI) testing environments to prioritize individuals at the highest risk of infection and optimize resource allocation. We previously derived a CPR to predict asymptomatic chlamydia and/or gonorrhea (CT/NG) infection among women and heterosexual men at in-person STI clinics based on 5 predictors. Population differences between clinic-based and Internet-based testers may limit the tool's application across settings. The primary objective of this study was to assess the validity, sensitivity, and overall performance of this CPR within an Internet-based testing environment (GetCheckedOnline.com). METHODS: We analyzed GetCheckedOnline online risk assessment and laboratory data from October 2015 to June 2019. We compared the STI clinic population used for CPR derivation (data previously published) and the GetCheckedOnline validation population using χ2 tests. Calibration and discrimination were assessed using the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test and the area under the receiver operating curve, respectively. Sensitivity and the fraction of total screening tests offered were quantified for CPR-predicted risk scores. RESULTS: Asymptomatic CT/NG infection prevalence in the GetCheckedOnline population (n = 5478) was higher than in the STI clinic population (n = 10,437; 2.4% vs. 1.8%, P = 0.007). When applied to GetCheckedOnline, the CPR had reasonable calibration (Hosmer-Lemeshow, P = 0.90) and discrimination (area under the receiver operating characteristic, 0.64). By screening only individuals with total risk scores ≥4, we would detect 97% of infections and reduce screening by 14%. CONCLUSIONS: The application of an existing CPR to detect asymptomatic CT/NG infection is valid within an Internet-based STI testing environment. Clinical prediction rules applied online can reduce unnecessary STI testing and optimize resource allocation within publicly funded health systems.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".