Field evaluation of four novel enzyme immunoassays for Chagas’ disease in Venezuela blood banks: comparison of assays using fixed‐epimastigotes, fixed‐trypomastigotes or trypomastigote excreted–secreted antigens from two <i>Trypanosoma cruzi</i> strains
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many serological tests have been developed for the diagnosis of Chagas' disease, but few have been subjected to a rigorous field evaluation. We have recently described several novel enzyme immunoassays (EIAs) based on fixed-whole organisms or trypomastigote excretory-secretory antigens (TESA) from different Trypanosoma cruzi strains (Tulahuen or Brazil). This study evaluated the most promising of these novel assays (e.g. fixed-epimastigotes, fixed-trypomastigotes, TESA Brazil and TESA Tulahuen antigens) in a field study of Venezuelan blood bank specimens. The assays were tested in an operator-blinded fashion using 2038 blood bank samples obtained from low and high T.cruzi prevalence regions of Venezuela (n= 1050 and n= 988 from Bolivar and Portuguesa states, respectively). Based on National Laboratory for Chagas Immunodiagnosis (NLCI) 'gold standard' results, all novel EIAs were superior to the commercial kit currently used in Venezuela, achieving 100% sensitivity and >99% specificity at optimal cut-off values. The novel assays identified seven false-negative samples compared with the routine screening performed by the Venezuelan blood bank although two samples were also misclassified as positive. Minor differences in the performance of the four novel assays were observed at lower arbitrary cut-off values. This study confirms the potential utility of both the fixed-organism and the TESA-based assays in the diagnosis of T.cruzi infection.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".