Estimating the test-adjusted incidence of<i>Chlamydia trachomatis</i>infections identified through Public Health Ontario Laboratories in Peel region, Ontario, 2010–2018: a population-based study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Public health guidelines for chlamydia testing are not sex specific, but young females test at a disproportionally higher rate than males and other age groups. This study aims to describe testing trends across age and sex subgroups, then estimate a test-adjusted incidence of chlamydia in these subgroups to identify gaps in current testing practices. METHODS: We used a population-based study to examine observed chlamydia rates by age and sex subgroups: 15-19 years, 20-29 years, 30-39 years and older than 40 years. The study included diagnostic test results recorded by Public Health Ontario Laboratories between Jan. 1, 2010, and Dec. 31, 2018, for individuals living in Peel region, Ontario. We then employed meta-regression models as a method of standardization to estimate the effect of sex and age on standardized morbidity ratio, testing ratio and test positivity, then calculate a test-adjusted incidence of chlamydia for each subgroup. RESULTS: Over the study period, infection, testing and test positivity varied across age and sex subgroups. Observed incidence and testing were highest in females aged 20-29 years, whereas males had the highest standardized test positivity across all age groups. After estimating test-adjusted incidence for each age-sex subgroup, males in the 15-19-year and 30-39-year age groups had an increase in incidence of 60.2% and 9.7%, respectively, compared with the observed incidence. INTERPRETATION: We found that estimated test-adjusted incidence was higher than observed incidence in males aged 15-19 years and 30-39 years. This suggests that infections in males are likely being missed owing to differential testing, and this may be contributing to the persistent increase in reported cases in Canada. Public health programming that targets males, especially in high-risk settings and communities, and use of innovative partner notification methods could be critical to curbing overall rates of chlamydia.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".