<i>Chlamydia pneumoniae</i>Serology: Interlaboratory Variation in Microimmunofluorescence Assay Results
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The lack of standardization in chlamydia serology has made interpretation of published data difficult. This study was initiated to determine the extent of interlaboratory variation of microimmunofluorescence (MIF) test results for the serodiagnosis of Chlamydia pneumoniae infections. Identical panels of 22 sera were sent to 14 laboratories in eight countries for the determination of IgG and IgM antibodies by MIF. Although there was extensive variation in the numeric titer values, the overall percentage agreement with the reference standard titers from the University of Washington was 80%. For results by serodiagnostic category, the best agreement was for four-fold rise in IgG titers, while the lowest agreement was for negative or low IgG titers. Agreement for IgM titers was 50%-95%. Four laboratories failed to discern false-positive IgM titers possibly because of the presence of rheumatoid factor. Further studies are underway to determine the source of interlaboratory variation for the MIF test.
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 | 0.038 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".