Enhanced Detection and Typing of Human Papillomavirus (HPV) DNA in Anogenital Samples with PGMY Primers and the Linear Array HPV Genotyping Test
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Roche PGMY primer-based research prototype line blot assay (PGMY-LB) is a convenient tool in epidemiological studies for the detection and typing of human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA. This assay has been optimized and is being commercialized as the Linear Array HPV genotyping test (LA-HPV). We assessed the agreement between LA-HPV and PGMY-LB for detection and typing of 37 HPV genotypes in 528 anogenital samples (236 anal, 146 physician-collected cervical, and 146 self-collected cervicovaginal swabs) obtained from human immunodeficiency virus-seropositive individuals (236 men and 146 women). HPV DNA was detected in 433 (82.0%) and 458 (86.7%) samples with PGMY-LB and LA-HPV (P = 0.047), respectively, for an excellent agreement of 93.8% (kappa = 0.76). Of the 17,094 HPV typing results, 16,562 (1,743 positive and 14,819 negative results) were concordant between tests (agreement = 96.9%; kappa = 0.76). The mean agreement between tests for each type was 96.4% +/- 2.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 95.6% to 97.2%; range, 86% to 100%), for an excellent mean kappa value of 0.85 +/- 0.10 (95% CI, 0.82 to 0.87). However, detection rates for most HPV types were greater with LA-HPV. The mean number of types per sample detected by LA-HPV (4.2 +/- 3.4; 95% CI, 3.9 to 4.5; median, 3.0) was greater than that for PGMY-LB (3.4 +/- 3.0; 95% CI, 3.1 to 3.6; median, 2.0) (P < 0.001). The number of types detected in excess by LA-HPV in anal samples correlated with the number of types per sample (r = 0.49 +/- 0.06; P = 0.001) but not with patient age (r = 0.03 +/- 0.06; P = 0.57), CD4 cell counts (r = 0.06 +/- 0.06; P = 0.13), or the grade of anal disease (r = -0.11 +/- 0.06; P = 0.07). LA-HPV compared favorably with PGMY-LB but yielded higher detection rates for newer and well-known HPV types.
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 | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".