Evaluation of malaria parasite screening procedures among Sudanese blood donors.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the standard microscopic examination, the polymerase chain reaction (PCR), and the immunochromatography test (ICT) to determine the best method for screening blood donors for malaria parasites in Sudan. METHODS: A total of 100 blood donors were screened for malaria parasites by standard microscopic technique, ICT, and PCR Blood films were examined microscopically using standard Giemsa staining techniques. Qurum (Canadian Company) malaria kits were used to perform the ICT. For performing PCR, DNA was extracted using Chelex method and amplified by the moderately repetitive DNA sequence pBRK-l. RESULTS: Using PCR, a total of 21 blood samples were positive; 8 (38%) of them showed negative blood films and 7 (33%) were negative on ICT. Four blood samples that tested positive by ICT despite a negative PCR and microscopic examination were proved to be false positives. The false negativity of both the microscopic examination and ICT was found to be significant. The sensitivity of microscopy was 61.9% and of ICT was 66.7%, while the specificity of microscopy was 100% and of ICT was 94.9%. When direct microscopy was considered as the standard technique the sensitivity of ICT was 100% and the specificity was 94.3%. CONCLUSION: Although PCR is more sensitive and more specific, it is unaffordable. Microscopy for malaria when compared to ICT showed similar sensitivity at low cost. However, all human plasmodium species can be detected using the microscopy while only two species (P. falciparum and P. vivax) can be detected by ICT. The detected false positivity of ICT is not inconsequential since this implies the rejection of a greater proportion of blood donations. Therefore, microscopy is considered more suitable for screening Sudanese blood donors for malaria parasites prior to donation at the present time. RECOMMENDATIONS: To establish a reference malaria diagnosis unit in each blood bank in Sudan as well as to train blood bankers to perform microscopic examinations.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".