Comparison of throat swabs and nasopharyngeal suction specimens in non‐sputum‐producing patients with cystic fibrosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Both throat swabs and nasopharyngeal suction (NPS) specimens are used for microbiological assessment in non-sputum-producing patients with cystic fibrosis (CF), but studies comparing their diagnostic yield are lacking. We, therefore, conducted a prospective study in young CF patients, in which both techniques were performed in random order. Forty-seven consecutive CF children aged 6 months to 10 years were studied during routine visits to the clinic. CF relevant pathogens were found in the majority of patients with no significant differences in the rate of positive cultures for Staphylococcus aureus, Haemophilus influenzae, or Pseudomonas aeruginosa. A statistically significant difference was observed in the rate of detection of other organisms with only 9/47 (19%) of throat swab specimens and 27/47 (57%) of NPS specimens being positive (P = 0.0004). This included 12 positive cultures for Streptococcus pneumoniae and 11 cultures that were positive for Moraxella catarrhalis, both of which are frequent colonizers of the upper airway. Therefore, the most common bacterial pathogens affecting the CF lung appear to be detected in similar frequency by throat swab as by nasopharyngeal suction. There is evidence that nasopharyngeal suction yields more specimens of Streptococcus pneumoniae and Moraxella catarrhalis, which may reflect upper airway colonization rather than lower airway infection. We conclude that nasopharyngeal suction is not routinely warranted as there is no benefit over throat swab in detection of CF pathogens in infants and young children with CF.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".