Chlamydia and Gonorrhea Infections in Genital and Extragenital Samples Among Men and Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: For people who have anal and/or oral sex, many programs recommend genital and extragenital (defined here as anorectal and oropharyngeal) screening for Chlamydia trachomatis (CT) and Neisseria gonorrhoeae (NG) to identify all potential sites of infection. METHODS: We assessed genital and extragenital CT and NG prevalence among people reporting extragenital sexual exposure. RESULTS: Among 343 gay and bisexual men who reported sex with men (GBMSM), 42 (12.2%) had CT with positivity of 3.5%, 9.3%, and 1.8% in the genital, anal, and oral samples, respectively. In this same group, 55 (16.0%) had NG with positivity of 5.2%, 8.5%, and 7.6% in the genital, anal, and oral samples, respectively. If only genital screening had been performed, 71.4% of CT infections and 67.3% of NG infections in GBMSM would have gone undetected. Among 96 men who only have sex with women (MSW), 10 (10.4%) had chlamydial infection-all detected in genital samples with no extragenital infections detected. Nine gonococcal infections (9.4%) were detected in MSW, with positivity of 6.3%, 2.1%, and 3.1% in the genital, anal, and oral samples, respectively. If only genital testing had been performed, no CT infections would have been missed among MSW; however, 33.3% of NG infections would have been missed. Among 329 cisgender women, 35 (10.6%) had CT with positivity of 7.9%, 6.1%, and 1.8% in the genital, anal, and oral samples, respectively. In the same group, 17 (5.2%) had NG with positivity of 4.0%, 2.1%, and 2.4% in the genital, anal, and oral samples, respectively. Among these women, 25.7% and 23.5% of CT and NG infections, respectively, would not have been detected. CONCLUSIONS: The increased case finding when including extragenital testing for GBMSM and women was confirmed in this analysis. However, the benefit-cost ratio and the clinical or public health value of extragenital screening in these different populations require further study.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".