Use of the Normalized Absorbance Ratio as an Internal Standardization Approach To Minimize Measurement Error in Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assays for Diagnosis of Human Papillomavirus Infection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The serological detection of antibodies against human papillomavirus (HPV) antigens is a useful tool to determine exposure to genital HPV infection and in predicting the risk of infection persistence and associated lesions. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs) are commonly used for seroepidemiological studies of HPV infection but are not standardized. Intra- and interassay performance variation is difficult to control, especially in cohort studies that require the testing of specimens over extended periods. We propose the use of normalized absorbance ratios (NARs) as a standardization procedure to control for such variations and minimize measurement error. We compared NAR and ELISA optical density (OD) values for the strength of the correlation between serological results for paired visits 4 months apart and HPV-16 DNA positivity in cervical specimens from a cohort investigation of 2,048 women tested with an ELISA using HPV-16 virus-like particles. NARs were calculated by dividing the mean blank-subtracted (net) ODs by the equivalent values of a control serum pool included in the same plate in triplicate, using different dilutions. Stronger correlations were observed with NAR values than with net ODs at every dilution, with an overall reduction in nonexplained regression variability of 39%. Using logistic regression, the ranges of odds ratios of HPV-16 DNA positivity contrasting upper and lower quintiles at different dilutions and their averages were 4.73 to 5.47 for NARs and 2.78 to 3.28 for net ODs, with corresponding significant improvements in seroreactivity-risk trends across quintiles when NARs were used. The NAR standardization is a simple procedure to reduce measurement error in seroepidemiological studies of HPV infection.
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 | 0.065 | 0.069 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".