Syphilis in pregnancy: A practical guide for prenatal care providers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Syphilis during pregnancy remains a persistent global public health challenge. Untreated or inadequately treated syphilis infection during pregnancy contributes significantly to preventable perinatal morbidity and mortality. In the last five years, a resurgence of syphilis among pregnant women in several regions has led to a concerning rise in congenital syphilis cases. Vertical transmission can occur at any point during pregnancy or delivery, with the highest risk observed during primary and secondary stages of infection compared to latent phases. To align with the World Health Organization (WHO) target of reducing the vertical transmission rate below 0.05%, the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) has developed evidence-based guidance for the management of syphilis during pregnancy. The guidance advocates for universal early screening, strengthened health systems to ensure access to free and timely prenatal care, and the integration of effective follow-up strategies. As early diagnosis and treatment are highly effective in reducing transmission, syphilis screening should begin at the first prenatal visit. While regional protocols vary, at a minimum, screening should be repeated at delivery in countries that have not yet met WHO eradication targets. Benzathine penicillin remains the treatment of choice, with proven efficacy and safety. Additionally, screening and treatment of sexual partners are essential to prevent maternal reinfection and community transmission. Strengthening health systems to support these interventions is fundamental to improving maternal and fetal/neonatal health outcomes and advancing towards global elimination of congenital syphilis worldwide.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.054 | 0.034 |
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".