Survival analysis of diagnostic assays in Plasmodium falciparum malaria
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Rapid diagnostic tests (RDT) and real-time PCR (qPCR) assays are sensitive for diagnosing malaria, but because they detect antigen and DNA, respectively, positivity may not reflect active infection. Performance characteristics of RDT and qPCR in Plasmodium falciparum positive specimens were evaluated over time to elucidate duration of positivity following conversion to microscopy negative. METHODS: Specimens from patients with at least one specimen that was positive for P. falciparum by microscopy, and at least one specimen that was negative for P. falciparum within a 1-month period were identified. Survival distributions of the diagnostic tests over time were compared. Performance characteristics for each test were calculated. RESULTS: Ninety specimens were included, with 48 initially positive for P. falciparum, and 42 subsequently negative. Of 42 specimens that converted to microscopy-negative following an initial positive, 26 (61.9 %) and 41 (97.6 %) were positive by qPCR and RDT, respectively. Survival curves of microscopy versus qPCR, as well as microscopy vs RDT differed significantly (p = 0.0002 and p < 0.0001, respectively). Compared to microscopy, sensitivity of qPCR was 100.0 % (95 % CI 90.8-100.0 %), and that of RDT was 100.0 % (95 % CI 90.8-100.0 %). CONCLUSIONS: Due to slow clearance of circulating antigen and DNA from bloodstream, RDT and qPCR have low positive predictive value for clinically relevant asexual parasitaemia in post-treatment specimens. Thus, microscopy remains the only available malaria diagnostic that can reliably distinguish true asexual parasitaemia from prolonged clearance of antigen and nucleic acid in a convalescing patient.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".