Pgp3 Antibody Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay, a Sensitive and Specific Assay for Seroepidemiological Analysis of <i>Chlamydia trachomatis</i> Infection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding of the burden of Chlamydia trachomatis infection and its clinical sequelae is hampered by the absence of accurate, well-characterized tests using serological methods to determine past exposure to infection. An "in-house" immunoglobulin G (IgG) enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) based on the C. trachomatis-specific antigen Pgp3 was produced and evaluated against three commercial ELISAs derived from the major outer membrane protein: the Medac pELISA plus, the Savyon SeroCT-IgG ELISA, and the Ani Labsystems IgG enzyme immunoassay. Sensitivities and specificities were determined using sera from both male and female patients (n = 356) for whom C. trachomatis had been detected in the lower genital tract at least 1 month prior to the testing of the sample and from 722 Chlamydia-negative children aged 2 to 13 years. The Pgp3 ELISA was significantly more sensitive (57.9% [95% confidence interval {95% CI}, 52.7 to 62.9%]) than the Ani Labsystems (49.2% [95% CI, 44.0 to 54.3%]; P = 0.003), SeroCT (47.2% [95% CI, 42.1 to 52.4%]; P < 0.0005), and Medac (44.4% [95% CI, 39.3 to 49.6%]; P < 0.0005) ELISAs. The Pgp3, Ani Labsystems, and SeroCT assays, but not the Medac assay, had significantly higher sensitivity for female specimens than for male specimens (73.8 versus 44.2%, 59.8 versus 40.5%, 55.5 versus 40%, and 45.7 versus 43.7%, respectively). For female patients, the Pgp3 assay was 14.0% (95% CI, 5.5 to 22.5%) more sensitive than the next most sensitive ELISA, the Ani Labsystems assay (P = 0.001). There was no significant difference in specificity between the Pgp3 (97.6% [95% CI, 96.2 to 98.6%]), Ani Labsystems (99% [95% CI, 97.7 to 99.6%]), SeroCT (97.2% [95% CI, 95.7 to 98.2%]), and Medac (96% [95% CI, 94.3 to 97.2%]) ELISAs. None of the ELISAs showed evidence of cross-reactivity with antibodies to Chlamydia pneumoniae.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".