The Laboratory Impact of Changing Syphilis Screening From the Rapid-Plasma Reagin to a Treponemal Enzyme Immunoassay: A Case-study From the Greater Toronto Area
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In 2005, syphilis screening in the Greater Toronto Area of Canada moved from the rapid plasma reagin (RPR) to a treponemal enzyme immunoassay (EIA). We sought to understand the consequences of this change on laboratory results and testing patterns with a population-based retrospective study of laboratory-based diagnoses of syphilis. METHODS: Samples positive under RPR (1998-2005) and EIA (2005-2008) screening were confirmed with an alternate treponemal test, and during the latter period underwent RPR testing. We compared monthly rates and the forecasting relationship between positives and future submissions with time-series methods, and assessed risk factors for EIA(+)/RPR(-) results using Poisson regression. RESULTS: A total of 3,092,938 submissions were included. Following EIA implementation, confirmed positive rates increased by 10.3 per 100,000 population (P<0.001). 0.59% of EIA(+)/RPR(-) individuals converted to RPR(+) within 2 months. EIA(+)/RPR(-) patients were more likely to be male (incidence rate ratio [IRR]: 2.3, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.6-2.5), asymptomatic (IRR: 1.8, 95% CI: 1.3-2.8), and aged>50 years (IRR: 2.4, 95% CI: 1.6-3.5) than those with EIA(+)/RPR(+) results. We detected a significant positive feedback loop between positive tests and subsequent submissions. This relationship was only transiently evident for EIA(+)/RPR(-) results up to 1 year following the changeover. CONCLUSIONS: EIA screening facilitates identification of probable latent syphilis and earlier serological detection of infectious syphilis, but may transiently cause increases in testing and indirectly suggests that physicians' interpretation of RPR(-) serology may lead to partner testing. In the absence of a true gold standard, implementation of EIA screening warrants careful communication regarding serological interpretation.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".