Impact of Microscopy Error on Estimates of Protective Efficacy in Malaria‐Prevention Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Microscopy is an imperfect reference standard used for malaria diagnosis in clinical trials. The purpose of this study was to provide an assessment of the accuracy of basic microscopy, to compare polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based diagnosis with microscopy results, and to assess the effect of microscopy error on apparent protective efficacy. The sensitivity and specificity of basic, compared with expert, microscopy was determined to be 91% and 71%, respectively. In a clinical trial, agreement between PCR and microscopy results improved with expert confirmation of initial results. In a simulated 12-week trial with weekly routine malaria smears, a very high specificity (>99%) for each malaria smear was found to be necessary for an estimate of protective efficacy to be within 10%-25% of the true value, but sensitivity had little effect on this estimate. Microscopy error occurs and can affect clinical trial results.
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 | 0.699 | 0.863 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".