ArticleFrontiers in public health2022
Determinants and prediction of
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of a free mail-in opt-out STI testing programme on 3-month rescreening rates in reproductive health centres.Sexually transmitted infections · 2026Article
- The WHO's critical bacteria list: scientific response eight years after its implementation and development of an AI-based tool for its monitoring.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Article
- Genome-wide association study of chlamydia reinfection in African American women.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Article
- Enhancing HIV/STI decision-making: challenges and opportunities in leveraging predictive models for individuals, healthcare providers, and policymakers.Journal of translational medicine · 2024Review
- Building gender-specific sexually transmitted infection risk prediction models using CatBoost algorithm and NHANES data.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Methods: Our baseline data included 5,806 heterosexuals with chlamydia aged ≥18 years and 2,070 re-tested for chlamydia within 1 year of their chlamydia diagnosis at the Melbourne Sexual Health Center from January 2, 2015, to May 15, 2020. We used routinely collected electronic health record (EHR) variables and machine-learning models to predict chlamydia re-testing and re-infection events. We also used logistic regression to investigate factors associated with chlamydia re-testing and re-infection. Results: About 2,070 (36%) of 5,806 heterosexuals with chlamydia were re-tested for chlamydia within 1 year. Among those retested, 307 (15%) were re-infected. Multivariable logistic regression analysis showed that older age (≥35 years old), female, living with HIV, being a current sex worker, patient-delivered partner therapy users, and higher numbers of sex partners were associated with an increased chlamydia re-testing within 1 year. Multivariable logistic regression analysis also showed that younger age (18-24 years), male gender, and living with HIV were associated with an increased chlamydia re-infection within 1 year. The XGBoost model was the best model for predicting chlamydia re-testing and re-infection within 1 year among heterosexuals with chlamydia; however, machine learning approaches and these self-reported answers from clients did not provide a good predictive value (AUC < 60.0%). Conclusion: The low rate of chlamydia re-testing and high rate of chlamydia re-infection among heterosexuals with chlamydia highlights the need for further interventions. Better targeting of individuals more likely to be re-infected is needed to optimize the provision of PDPT and encourage the test of re-infection at 3 months.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.