Reliability of the Xpert HPV Assay to Detect High-Risk Human Papillomavirus DNA in a Colposcopy Referral Population
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.
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 | 0.009 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".