Evaluation of Anatomically Designed Flocked Rectal Swabs for Molecular Detection of Enteric Pathogens in Children Admitted to Hospital with Severe Gastroenteritis in Botswana
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two-hundred eighty matched bulk stool and anatomically designed flocked rectal swab samples were collected from children admitted to the hospital with acute diarrhea in Botswana. Their parents were asked about the acceptability of the swab collection method compared with bulk stool sampling. All samples underwent identical testing with a validated 15-target (9 bacterial, 3 viral, and 3 parasite) commercial multiplex PCR assay. The flocked swabs had a 12% higher yield for bacterial pathogen targets (241 versus 212; P = 0.003) compared with that of stool samples, as well as similar yields for viral targets (110 versus 113; P = 0.701) and parasite targets (59 versus 65; P = 0.345). One hundred sixty-four of the flocked swab-stool pairs were also tested with separate laboratory-developed bacterial and viral multiplex assays, and the flocked rectal swabs had a performance that was similar to that seen with commercial assay testing. Almost all parents/guardians found the swabs acceptable. Flocked rectal swabs significantly facilitate the molecular diagnosis of diarrheal disease in children.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".