Should we screen less frequently for chlamydia and gonorrhoea in gay and bisexual men who have sex with men? Findings from a global crowdsourcing exercise with experts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Many countries recommend 3-monthly chlamydia/gonorrhoea screening for gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men (GBMSM). Evidence about the limited impact of frequent, asymptomatic gonorrhoea/chlamydia screening on population prevalence, coupled with concerns about overburdened health services and antimicrobial resistance (from frequent treatment), calls into question current approaches to asymptomatic screening. We explored sexual health professionals/experts' arguments in favour/against reducing asymptomatic screening using Polis (www.Pol.is), an online, crowdsourcing tool for understanding what large groups think. METHODS: Recruited via global peak bodies/networks, 99 individuals in the field of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) (43.4 % clinicians, 35.4% researchers) primarily from Australasia (41.4%), UK/Europe (29.3%) and North America (22.2%) participated. Ninety-one statements were submitted in favour/against reduced screening for GBMSM (eg, 'Bisexual men who don't test regularly risk putting women at risk'). Participants voted on submitted statements (agree/disagree/pass). Statements with ≥80% agreement were considered as 'strong' support, 70%-79% 'moderate' and ≤69% 'mixed'. Statements were grouped using content analysis to assess support for clusters of related statements. RESULTS: There was 'mixed support' for statements on: (1) the impact of screening in reducing prevalence; (2) whether asymptomatic infections pose clinical harm/necessitate treatment; and (3) risk of antimicrobial resistance. Statements advocating for 6-monthly screening received 'moderate support', with arguments centring on resource use. Participants 'strongly supported' the need for community engagement and maintaining frequent HIV/syphilis screening. CONCLUSIONS: While there were mixed opinions about relative utility, risks and harms of reducing chlamydia/gonorrhoea screening for GBMSM, arguments relating to resource constraints may provide common ground for policy changes.
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 | 0.018 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".