Reliability of the Xpert HPV Assay to Detect High-Risk Human Papillomavirus DNA in a Colposcopy Referral Population
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The Xpert HPV Assay (Xpert; Cepheid, Sunnyvale, CA) was developed for the multianalytic GeneXpert platform. METHODS: In a colposcopy referral population of 708 women living in the United States, two cervical specimens, A and B, were collected, and both were tested by the Xpert assay for high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) DNA, permitting an evaluation of its test reliability. Specimen B was also tested by Hybrid Capture 2 (hc2; Qiagen, Germantown, MD) and the cobas HPV Test (cobas; Roche Molecular Systems, Pleasanton, CA). RESULTS: The κ and percent agreement for any hrHPV for the two Xpert results were 0.88 and 94.5%, respectively. There was no statistical difference in testing positive on both specimens by Xpert (P = .62). The sensitivity for detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or more severe (CIN2+) was 89.0% using specimen A and 90.4% using specimen B for Xpert, 90.4% for cobas, and 81.6% for hc2. CONCLUSIONS: The Xpert assay was sensitive and reliable for the detection of hrHPV and the identification of women with CIN2+.
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.
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 | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it