Laboratory Diagnosis of Syphilis: A Survey to Examine the Range of Tests Used in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Laboratory diagnosis of syphilis has undergone major changes in the past decade with the introduction of immunoassays and recombinant Treponema pallidum antigens as screening tools for syphilis infection. To address this change in laboratory practice, a national syphilis laboratory working group was established with members from the Public Health Agency of Canada, provincial public health laboratories across the country as well as sexually transmitted infection researchers, clinicians and epidemiologists. This working group aims to examine how the use of newer immunoassays will affect syphilis diagnosis, surveillance and disease management. To provide a baseline for this work, an e-mail survey was conducted in the fall of 2009 to determine current laboratory practices for syphilis diagnosis in Canada. The most commonly used tests were rapid plasma reagin, enzyme immunoassay, T pallidum passive particle agglutination, venereal disease research laboratory, fluorescent treponemal antibody absorption, line immunoassay and polymerase chain reaction with 92%, 36%, 32%, 20%, 12%, 12% and 12% of the responding laboratories reporting using these tests, respectively. The ultimate goal of this working group will be to update laboratory guidelines for the diagnosis of syphilis, and to identify syphilis surveillance and research priorities in Canada.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".