MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4282913727 · doi:10.31128/ajgp-07-21-6066

Patient-delivered partner therapy: One option for management of sexual partner(s) of a patient diagnosed with a chlamydia infection

2022· article· en· W4282913727 on OpenAlexaff
Jacqueline Coombe, Jane L. Goller, Helen Bittleston, Deborah Bateson, Christopher Bourne, Heather O’Donnell, Jane Tomnay, Meredith Temple‐Smith, Jane S. Hocking

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralian Journal of General Practice · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicReproductive tract infections research
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Health Services and Policy Research
FundersNational Health and Medical Research CouncilMedical Research Council
KeywordsChlamydiaPartner notificationCornerstoneMedicineFamily medicineNursingIntensive care medicineHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)ImmunologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Chlamydia is the most commonly diagnosed bacterial sexually transmissible infection (STI) in Australia. Partner management is key to reducing transmission and a cornerstone of best practice chlamydia management. While most patients will opt for telling their partner(s) themselves, patient-delivered partner therapy (PDPT) offers an alternative way to inform and treat partners where usual management is inappropriate or unlikely to be undertaken. Guidelines for PDPT vary across Australia. Recent research found that general practitioners (GP)s want practical guidance for using PDPT in appropriate situations. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this article is to provide an overview of the process of offering PDPT and note the challenges GPs may face in its provision. DISCUSSION: PDPT is one option for partner management when sexual partner(s) are unlikely or unable to seek timely care themselves. However, there are challenges to the use of PDPT in general practice. The provision of clear guidelines is an essential step to promote its appropriate use.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.101

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0300.006

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.286 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAustralian Journal of General PracticeSame topicReproductive tract infections researchFrench-language works237,207