MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2142909323 · doi:10.1128/jcm.00671-08

Evaluation of the OSOM <i>Trichomonas</i> Rapid Test versus Wet Preparation Examination for Detection of <i>Trichomonas vaginalis</i> Vaginitis in Specimens from Women with a Low Prevalence of Infection

2008· article· en· W2142909323 on OpenAlexaff
Lorraine Campbell, V. Diane Woods, Tracie Lloyd, Sameer Elsayed, Deirdre L. Church

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Microbiology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicReproductive tract infections research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryCalgary Laboratory Services
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTrichomonas vaginalisVaginitisTrichomonas VaginitisTrichomonasPredictive valueMedicineGynecologyTrichomoniasisFalse Negative ReactionsVaginaObstetricsInternal medicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The OSOM Trichomonas rapid test (OSOM Trich) was compared to the wet preparation examination (WP) for the detection of Trichomonas vaginalis vaginitis in women with a low prevalence of infection. A total of 19/1,009 (2%) women had T. vaginalis infection. OSOM Trich had very good performance, with sensitivity, specificity, efficiency, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of 94.7, 100, 99.9, 100, and 99.9%, respectively. The implementation of OSOM Trich would decrease labor costs.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.496
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.363
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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations85
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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