Prevalence of <i>Chlamydia trachomatis</i> Infection among Low- and High-Risk Filipino Women and Performance of <i>Chlamydia</i> Rapid Tests in Resource-Limited Settings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The prevalence of urogenital Chlamydia trachomatis infection was determined with a PCR-based test of women from low- and high-risk populations in Iloilo City, Philippines, between August 2002 and March 2006. Two rapid tests for C. trachomatis, Clearview Chlamydia MF and the Chlamydia Rapid Test (CRT), were also evaluated in these resource-limited settings. Specimens were obtained from female sex workers (FSWs; n = 1,484) attending a social hygiene clinic (SHC) and from women (n = 838) attending an obstetrics-gynecology (OB-GYN) clinic. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of the rapid tests were determined, with PCR as the gold standard. The PCR positivity rate for SHC participants (72% asymptomatic) ranged from 17.9 to 32.0% during the study period. Compared with those of PCR, the sensitivities and specificities of the Clearview test were 53.5 and 99.1%, respectively, with endocervical swab specimens (CS; n = 822) from the FSWs and 31.1 and 95.2%, respectively, with vaginal swab specimens (VS; n = 333) from these women. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of the CRT with VS from the FSWs were 71.0, 99.0, 97.1, and 87.9%, respectively. At the OB-GYN site, the PCR positivity rate with VS was 6.3%. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of the CRT with these specimens were 86.8, 99.6, 93.9, and 99.1%, respectively. The performance of the Clearview test at the SHC was thus markedly lower with VS than with CS, whereas the CRT performed well with VS from both populations.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".