Welcome to Med Op-Ed, where we highlight recently published editorials. In this installment: Direct-to-consumer sexually transmitted infection (STI) testing may lead to gaps in public health; ultraprocessed foods (UPFs) pose risks to children; and who should govern the clinical use of artificial intelligence (AI).

DIY Chlamydia Tests: A Step Back for Public Health?

Direct-to-consumer testing for chlamydia and gonorrhea removes essential oversight from healthcare professionals and creates public health gaps that undermine efforts to manage STIs, M. Jacques Nsuami, MD, MPH, and Julio E. Figueroa, MD, wrote in JAMA.

The Context

• In March 2025, the FDA authorized marketing of a test for chlamydia, gonorrhea, and trichomoniasis that uses vaginal swabs to generate results entirely at home. Other direct-to-consumer tests involve collecting specimens at home to send to a laboratory.
• Not including healthcare professionals in this process can lead to delays in treatment, missed extragenital infections, inadequate screening for other STIs such as human immunodeficiency virus, and a lack of guidance to patients about preexposure prophylaxis.
• In every state, healthcare professionals, not patients, are legally responsible for reporting cases of chlamydia, gonorrhea, syphilis, and HIV to health authorities, they wrote.

In Their Own Words

“There is more to chlamydia and gonorrhea than simply making a test of self-collected vaginal swab and urine specimen available to people who can afford it in the comfort and privacy of their own home.”

Read it: Direct-to-Consumer Tests for Chlamydia and Gonorrhea

Children Uniquely Vulnerable to Harm From UPFs

UPFs pose an urgent threat to human health, and children are especially vulnerable due to their developing taste preferences and exposure to marketing, Joan N. Matji, PhD, and Mauro Brero from UNICEF wrote in The Lancet.

The Context

• Research has shown that taste preferences can form early in childhood, so repeated exposure to UPFs may condition children to prefer sweet, salty, and artificially flavored options.
• A 2025 UNICEF report outlines how children and adolescents often are surrounded by cheap and aggressively marketed UPFs, while nutritious options are scarce or unaffordable.
• Policies targeting unhealthy foods, such as marketing restrictions, front-of-pack nutrition labels, and taxes, have led to measurable reductions in their consumption in some countries, they noted.

In Their Own Words

“Protecting children from UPFs is a fulfilment of fundamental rights that children cannot exercise independently — and the failure to act constitutes a violation of these rights by omission.”

Read it: Protecting Children From UPFs

Who’s Overseeing the Use of AI?

Successfully incorporating AI into encounters between clinicians and patients will require robust governance frameworks and institutional readiness on the part of regulators, hospitals, licensing boards, and medical associations to ensure its ethical and safe use, Sandeep Reddy, MBBS, PhD, and colleagues wrote in BMJ.

The Context

• Government agencies have established guidelines and regulatory approval pathways for AI or machine learning tools, but harmonization between the agencies is limited and postmarketing surveillance systems are underdeveloped, they wrote.
• Some hospitals are forming committees of clinicians, data scientists, and patients to assess the use of AI tools.
• Medical associations and licensing boards should embed AI governance in professional standards and provide guidelines on the use of AI in clinical decision making, the authors suggested.

In Their Own Words

“Without urgent and coordinated action, the benefits of AI risk being undermined by avoidable harms and loss of public trust.”

Read it: AI in the Doctor-Patient Encounter

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.