Comparison of direct microscopic examination and culture methods sensitivity for diagnosis of Trichomonas vaginalis in Tabriz health care centers visitors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Trichomonas vaginalis is a common pathogen with worldwide distribution. It is estimated that worldwide 180 million people are infected annually. Trichomoniasis is associated with vaginitis, cervicitis, low birth weight, and preterm delivery in pregnant women in addition, it is a cofactor in HIV transmission. Diagnosis of disease is traditionally depends on the microscopic observation of motile protozoa in vaginal discharge, with the sensitivity of 38% up to 80%. Culture of organism is the current gold standard and its sensitivity is 85-95%. In this study we used these two methods for comparative detection of T. vaginalis in vaginal discharge.\nMaterials and methods: A total of 2630 visitors attending the health care centers in Tabriz were examined. Two cotton swabs were used to obtain vaginal discharge. First swab was used for direct microscopic examination. Cultivation was performed in Kupferberg trichomonas medium (QUELAB, Canada) using second swab.\nResults: Clinical examination of 2630 health center visitors showed that 1575 person (59.88%) had vaginal signs and 1055 person were asymptomatic. 92 out of 2630 patients were positive for T. vaginalis by wet mount examination (3.46%). The growth of T. vaginalis was observed in 120 samples (4.56%). \nConclusion: Although wet preparation is the only test widely available for diagnosis of T. vaginalis, its sensitivity is poor. In this study, using culture as a gold standard, the sensitivity of wet preparation was 75% and specificity was 99%. The results suggest that direct examination with parasite cultivation can be the method of choice for detection of trichomoniasis.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".