Standardizing<i>Chlamydia pneumoniae</i>Assays: Recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (USA) and the Laboratory Centre for Disease Control (Canada)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chlamydia pneumoniae has been associated with atherosclerosis and several other chronic diseases, but reports from different laboratories are highly variable and "gold standards" are lacking, which has led to calls for more standardized approaches to diagnostic testing. Using leading researchers in the field, we reviewed the available approaches to serological testing, culture, DNA amplification, and tissue diagnostics to make specific recommendations. With regard to serological testing, only use of microimmunofluorescence is recommended, standardized definitions for "acute infection" and "past exposure" are proposed, and the use of single immunoglobulin (Ig) G titers for determining acute infection and IgA for determining chronic infection are discouraged. Confirmation of a positive culture result requires propagation of the isolate or confirmation by use of polymerase chain reaction (PCR). Four of 18 PCR assays described in published reports met the proposed validation criteria. More consistent use of control antibodies and tissues and improvement in skill at identifying staining artifacts are necessary to avoid false-positive results of immunohistochemical staining. These standards should be applied in future investigations and periodically modified as indicated.
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 | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
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".