High Analytical Sensitivity and Low Rates of Inhibition May Contribute to Detection of <i>Chlamydia trachomatis</i> in Significantly More Women by the APTIMA Combo 2 Assay
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The clinical sensitivity of nucleic acid amplification tests may be determined by analytical sensitivity and inhibitors in patient samples. We established endpoints for detection of propagated Chlamydia trachomatis L2 434, diluted according to swab and urine protocols for APTIMA Combo 2 (AC2), ProbeTec ET (PT), and Amplicor (AMP) assays. AC2 was 1,000-fold more sensitive than PT and 10-fold more sensitive than AMP on mock swab specimens. For urine, AC2 analytical sensitivity was 100-fold greater than those of the other assays. Spiking an aliquot of each clinical-trial sample from 298 women demonstrated inhibition rates in first-void urine (FVU), cervical swabs (CS), and vaginal swabs (VS) of 12.1%, 12.8%, and 10.4% for AMP; 27.2%, 2%, and 2%, for PT; and 0.3%, 1.7%, and 1.3% for AC2. Inhibition of our C. trachomatis spike and the PT or AMP amplification controls from the manufacturers showed less than 50% correlation. Using an infected-patient reference standard (a specimen positive in at least two tests or a single test positive in two of three samples) in AC2, the VS identified 68/69 (98.6%) infected women compared to CS (89.9%) or FVU (81.2%). Significantly fewer women were identified by PT (65.2%, 63.8%, and 66.7%) or AMP (65.2%, 59.4%, and 56.5%) with the three specimens. By individual specimen type, AC2 confirmed virtually all PT- and AMP-positive specimens, but rates of AC2 confirmation by AMP or PT ranged from 62.9 to 80.3%. The AC2 test identified significantly more women infected with C. trachomatis (P = 0.001). Vaginal swabs appear to be the specimen of choice for screening.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".