Community and hospital HIV follow-up clinics achieve similar lumbar puncture and syphilis treatment success in patients with HIV–syphilis coinfection: Saskatoon, SK, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The rates of HIV and syphilis in Saskatchewan (SK) have been rising rapidly in recent years. The syndemic has raised concern for neurosyphilis, a complication that can occur at any stage of syphilis and is more common in people living with HIV (PLWH). Criteria published by the Public Health Agency of Canada recommends considering a lumbar puncture (LP) in patients with concomitant HIV and syphilis infection whose rapid plasma reagin (RPR) titre is ≥1:32 or whose CD4+ count is ≤350. We assessed whether this recommendation was met at 2 comparable clinical sites. Methods: In this retrospective analysis, we compare rates of LP and corresponding syphilis treatment success at two clinics in Saskatoon, SK: a community-based primary care clinic and a tertiary care hospital-based infectious disease clinic. Results: Of 193 syphilis cases across both sites, 128 cases met laboratory criteria for lumbar puncture. Rates of LP (9% primary care clinic and 19% infectious disease clinic) and syphilis treatment success (87% primary care clinic and 89% infectious disease clinic) were comparable between groups. When RPR titre was controlled for, clinic type did not statistically significantly affect the rates of lumbar puncture ( p = 0.104) or syphilis treatment success ( p = 0.068). A RPR titre ≥1:32 was positively associated with both treatment success (OR 2.596) and lumbar puncture (OR 4.495). Conclusion: Results suggest that there is no difference in either the community or hospital-based clinic type for syphilis treatment success and that rates of lumbar puncture of patients meeting serologic criteria are low across diverse HIV patient groups and clinical settings.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".