MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W197534061 · doi:10.1155/2005/359046

The laboratory diagnosis of <i>Chlamydia trachomatis</i> infections

2005· article· en· W197534061 on OpenAlexaff
Max Chernesky

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Infectious Diseases and Medical Microbiology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicReproductive tract infections research
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversitySt. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChlamydia trachomatisChlamydiaMedicineVirologyMicrobiologyImmunologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lower genital tract infections with Chlamydia trachomatis are predominantly asymptomatic in men and women. Diagnostic technology has provided several approaches to the diagnosis of C trachomatis. Outside of cells, Chlamydia can die or degrade without optimal storage and transportation. Because some of the other assays perform better on certain specimen types, it is important for laboratories to recognize these differences and provide advice to physicians and nurses collecting patient specimens, with the objective of diagnosing lower genital tract infections to prevent transmission and upper tract damage. Most invasive specimens, such as cervical or urethral swabs, may be collected for culture, antigen or nucleic acid detection. Noninvasive samples such as first-void urine and vaginal swabs can be easily collected by the patient; these samples must be tested by more sensitive nucleic acid amplification tests. These newer investigative strategies should enable implementation of screening programs to identify and treat partners. Serology has not been particularly useful for the diagnosis of acute C trachomatis infections in adults. Presently, it appears that antibiotic-resistant C trachomatis is not a clinical problem. Laboratories providing C trachomatis diagnosis require participation in continuous quality improvement programs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.236 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations66
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Infectious Diseases and Medical MicrobiologySame topicReproductive tract infections researchFrench-language works237,207