MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Confirming Positive Results of Nucleic Acid Amplification Tests (NAATs) for <i>Chlamydia trachomatis</i> : All NAATs Are Not Created Equal

2005· article· en· W2099484649 on OpenAlexaff
J Schachter, Edward W. Hook, David H. Martin, Dean Willis, Paul Fine, D. Fuller, Jeanne A. Jordan, William M. Janda, Max Chernesky

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Microbiology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicReproductive tract infections research
Canadian institutionsSt Joseph's Health Care
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNucleic Acid Amplification TestsChlamydia trachomatisChlamydiaVirologyBiologyNucleic acidImmunologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended confirming positive screening tests for Chlamydia trachomatis when positive predictive values are <90%. It is accepted that less sensitive tests (i.e., culture and immunoassays) should not be used to confirm the results of more sensitive nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs). We show that the same principle applies when NAATs are used for confirmation.

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 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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.202
Threshold uncertainty score0.952

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.103
GPT teacher head0.420
Teacher spread0.317 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations68
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical MicrobiologySame topicReproductive tract infections researchFrench-language works237,207