Serological diagnosis of syphilis: comparison of the Trep-Chek IgG enzyme immunoassay with other screening and confirmatory tests
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Trep-Chek IgG Enzyme Immunoassay (Trep-Chek IgG EIA) was evaluated with 604 serum specimens submitted for syphilis serology from patients across Canada against a battery of conventional syphilis serology tests, including the Rapid Plasma Reagin (RPR) test, the Venereal Disease Research Laboratory (VDRL) test, the Treponema pallidum passive particle agglutination (TP-PA) test, the fluorescent treponemal antibody absorption (FTA-ABS) test, and the newer confirmatory test, Innogenetics INNO-LIA. On the basis of a consensus result derived from these serologic tests, 34 specimens were found to be syphilis-positive (28 active and six past infections), and 570 were syphilis-negative (including 12 biological false positives). When the test results on this set of samples were compared to those obtained with the conventional tests RPR, VDRL, TP-PA, and FTA-ABS, the sensitivity and specificity of the Trep-Chek IgG EIA were found to be 85.3% and 95.6%, respectively. Without further evaluation, we do not recommend use of the Trep-Chek IgG EIA as a stand-alone test for either screening or confirmatory syphilis serology.
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 | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".