MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Diagnostic Performance of the Roche AMPLICOR PCR in Detecting <i>Neisseria gonorrhoeae</i> in Genitourinary Specimens from Female Sex Workers in Cotonou, Benin

2000· article· en· W2108203681 on OpenAlexaff
Léonard Mukenge-Tshibaka, Michel Alary, F Bernier, Eric Van Dyck, Catherine M Lowndes, A. Guédou, S. Anagonou, J Joly

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Microbiology · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicReproductive tract infections research
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalUniversité de MontréalHôpital du Saint-Sacrement
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeisseria gonorrhoeaeChlamydia trachomatisUrineMedicineGonorrheaGynecologyChlamydialesSexually transmitted diseaseMicrobiologyVirologyBiologyInternal medicineSyphilisHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic performance of the Roche multiplex AMPLICOR Chlamydia trachomatis/Neisseria gonorrhoeae PCR test for the detection of Neisseria gonorrhoeae infection in female urine specimens and wet and dry endocervical swabs. Endocervical swabs and urine specimens were collected from 342 female sex workers from Cotonou, Benin, and were tested using the AMPLICOR C. trachomatis/N. gonorrhoeae test (Roche Diagnostic Systems, Inc., Branchburg, N.J.) with internal control detection. Endocervical swabs were also cultured on Thayer-Martin medium. A series of alternate standards that included a combination of all the tests but not the test being evaluated was used to assess the performance of the test with each type of specimen. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values for the urine were 53.8, 98.9, 93.5, and 87.5%, respectively. Corresponding figures for the wet swab were 91.5, 100, 100, and 97.4%, respectively. Those for the dry swab were 96.3, 96.2, 88.5, and 98.8%, respectively. Based on this study, the AMPLICOR PCR assay showed a low sensitivity for detection of N. gonorrhoeae infection in urine specimens, whereas the test was found to be highly sensitive and specific with endocervical specimens.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.071

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.297 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations18
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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