MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4292673151 · doi:10.1071/sh22087

The need for sexual health clinics, their future role, and contribution to public health

2022· review· en· W4292673151 on OpenAlex
Meena S. Ramchandani, Christopher Bourne, Lindley A. Barbee, Elske Hoornenborg, Preeti Pathela, Stephanie N. Taylor, Henry J.C. de Vries

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSexual Health · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV/AIDS Research and Interventions
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Infection and Immunity
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGenital wartsPublic healthGonorrheaReproductive healthHealth careThrushEnvironmental healthHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)NursingFamily medicineEconomic growthHuman papilloma virusPopulationCervical cancerSyphilis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Specialised sexual health clinics (SHCs) play an important role in addressing the staggering rates of STIs seen in many high-income nations. Despite increasing healthcare coverage in the US and nationalised health care in some countries, there is a continued need for SHCs to meet the needs of patients and the community, especially for high-priority populations: those at high risk of STI acquisition and/or groups historically marginalised and underserved in the traditional healthcare system. We need to mobilise resources to support a stronger clinical infrastructure in specialised SHCs. This review describes the importance of SHCs, their future role, and some of the innovative programs housed within SHCs in the US, Australia, and the Netherlands to address both STI and HIV prevention for the populations they serve.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.828
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.158
GPT teacher head0.484
Teacher spread0.325 · 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