MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Evaluation of Self-Collected Samples in Contrast to Practitioner-Collected Samples for Detection of Chlamydia trachomatis, Neisseria gonorrhoeae, and Trichomonas vaginalis by Polymerase Chain Reaction Among Women Living in Remote Areas

2002· article· en· W2056287204 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSexually Transmitted Diseases · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicReproductive tract infections research
Canadian institutionsRoyal Ottawa Mental Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChlamydia trachomatisTrichomonas vaginalisNeisseria gonorrhoeaeMedicineGynecologySexually transmitted diseasePolymerase chain reactionTrichomonas VaginitisChlamydiaceaeChlamydiaObstetricsVirologyMicrobiologyBiologySyphilisImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Self-collected samples have been shown to be an acceptable and sensitive method for the detection by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) among women. GOAL The goal of the study was to compare self-collected sampling methods to conventional practitioner endocervical sampling for the PCR detection of Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae to compare two self-collected sampling methods for the detection of T vaginalis by PCR. STUDY DESIGN: Women (n = 318) from urban and remote areas of central Australia participated in the study when attending their health clinic for a check-up. They each provided a FVU sample, self-collected vaginal swab specimen, and tampon specimen. This was followed by a clinical examination by a practitioner, with collection of endocervical and high vaginal swabs for testing by conventional microscopy and culture for N gonorrhoeae and T vaginalis, respectively. The FVU, self-collected vaginal swab, tampon, and endocervical swab specimens were tested by Roche Cobas Amplicor for C trachomatis and N gonorrhoeae. The self-collected vaginal swab and tampon specimens were also tested by an in-house PCR method for the detection of T vaginalis. RESULTS: In toto, C trachomatis was detected by PCR in 11.5%, N gonorrhoeae in 11.8%, and T vaginalis in 24.6%. Molecular diagnostics for N gonorrhoeae and T vaginalis were significantly more sensitive than traditional assays with microscopy and culture. For the detection of C trachomatis by PCR, tampons were the most sensitive (100.0%) and urine the least sensitive (72.7%) specimens ( = 0.01). For the detection of by PCR, the self-collected tampon was the most sensitive specimen, followed by the endocervical swab, self-collected swab, and urine specimen, with sensitivities of 97.2%, 92.6%, 71.9%, and 31.2%, respectively. For detection of N gonorrhoeae, statistically significant differences were detected for urine versus tampon ( < 0.0001), endocervical swab ( < 0.001), and self-collected swab ( = 0.01) and for self-collected swab versus tampon ( = 0.01). Subsequent data collection showed that sensitivity of urine PCR for detection of N gonorrhoeae improved with freezing of urine specimens and shorter transport time. Tampons were also more sensitive than self-collected swabs for detection of T vaginalis (sensitivity of 100% versus 87.7%). CONCLUSION: Self-collected specimens offer women in remote communities an acceptable and sensitive alternative method of testing for STIs. The low sensitivity of N gonorrhoeae PCR of urine specimens may reflect poor transport and storage conditions, which we have shown can be improved by freezing urine specimens and reducing transport delays.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.887
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.251 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it