Evaluation of a Modified Sanitary Napkin as a Sample Self-Collection Device for the Detection of Genital Chlamydial Infection in Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A modified sanitary napkin was compared with endocervical swab and urine specimens for the detection of urogenital Chlamydia trachomatis infection. Endocervical swabs and/or first-catch urine were collected from 510 women at medical or community settings in Quebec City. Participants were also asked to wear a modified sanitary napkin (Ezy-Detek) during 4 consecutive hours and to bring it back to the clinic or mail it to the laboratory. Endocervical and urine specimens were tested using the Cobas Amplicor CT/NG assay (Roche Diagnostic Systems) according to the manufacturer's instructions, as were specimens collected with the napkin after adequate preparation. If the PCR test result was positive on the endocervical sample or on any two samples, a woman was considered to be infected. PCR testing results on paired samples were identical for 493 (96.6%) of 510 women. According to the definition given above, 58 (11.3%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 8.7 to 14.5%) women were infected with C. trachomatis. The sensitivity and specificity of PCR testing on modified sanitary napkin specimens were, respectively, 93.1% (54 of 58; 95% CI, 83.3 to 98.1%) and 98.9% (447 of 452; 95% CI, 97.4 to 99.6%) compared to 81.0% (47 of 58; 95% CI, 68.6 to 90.1%) and 100% (451 of 451; 95% CI, 99.2 to 100%) for urine specimens. The positive and negative predictive values were, respectively, 91.5% (54 of 59) and 99.1% (447 of 451) for the sanitary napkin specimens compared to 100% (47 of 47) and 97.6% (451 of 462) for urine samples. These results suggest that a modified sanitary napkin represents an effective noninvasive device for self-collection of specimens to detect urogenital C. trachomatis 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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".