MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410943264 · doi:10.1177/09564624251347457

Transmission of gonorrhea from the oral cavity to the rectal tract: A systematic review

2025· review· en· W4410943264 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Yuri Garcia Dutra Souza, Yan Rocha Neves, Valéria de Oliveira, Luiz Eduardo de Almeida, Mabel Miluska Suca Salas

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of STD & AIDS · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicReproductive tract infections research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGonorrheaMedicineObservational studyTransmission (telecommunications)PopulationMen who have sex with menNeisseria gonorrhoeaeCondomGynecologySexually transmitted diseaseEpidemiologyChlamydiaInternal medicineFamily medicineEnvironmental healthImmunologySyphilis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background The antimicrobial resistance of Neisseria gonorrhoeae and the high prevalence of asymptomatic extragenital infections are a worldwide concern. This research investigated whether gonorrhea can be transmitted from the oral cavity to the anorectal tract among men who have sex with men. Purpose The aim of this research is to find plausible relationships regarding the probability of gonococcal transmission from the oral cavity to the anorectal tract among MSM. Research Design A research question was defined using the P.I.C.O. strategy (population, intervention or exposure, comparison and outcome), where the target population is MSM, the intervention is exposure to contaminated oral cavity/saliva, the control is the absence of exposure, and the outcome is the acquisition of GC. The eligibility criteria included observational studies involving men who have sex with men, regardless of sexual orientation, aged 16 or older, screened for oropharyngeal and rectal gonorrhea, and examining the role of oral fluids in transmission. Studies involving partners previously diagnosed with urogenital gonorrhea or reporting consistent condom use during receptive penoanal sex were excluded to avoid urethral-to-anorectal transmission bias. Study Sample The databases employed were PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, EBSCO, SciELO, and the Virtual Health Library (VHL). A total of 383 studies were identified, however, only 6 were included. Data Collection and/or Analysis According to the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS), two studies were “very good,” two “good,” and two “satisfactory”. Most studies described a complete methodology according to Strengthening the Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE). Results Differences in diagnostic methods, methodologies, and variables limited the findings. While the results do not confirm transmission from the oral cavity to the anorectal tract, they suggest its possibility. Further research is needed to better understand this transmission route. Conclusions Transmissibility of gonorrhea from oropharyngeal via to the anorectal tract cannot be totally establish. However, evidence suggested the existence of this gonorrhea transmission. The fact that men with rectal gonorrhea continue to appear, even in contexts of condom use or the absence of receptive penoanal sex, brings the importance of cases monitoring and the establishment of preventive strategies.

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.884
Threshold uncertainty score0.590

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.352 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of STD & AIDSSame topicReproductive tract infections researchFrench-language works237,207