Diagnostic Value of Amsel's Clinical Criteria for Diagnosis of Bacterial Vaginosis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Bacterial vaginosis (BV) is one of the most prevalent infections in women of reproductive age. Amsel's criteria and Nugent scoring system are among the most commonly used diagnostic methods. Although Nugent scoring system is considered the gold standard for diagnosing BV, it is time consuming and costly, and its interpretation needs lab equipment and experts. Hence, most physicians are inclined to use simpler clinical criteria that are yet accurate instead.The present study aimed to determine the diagnostic value of Amsel's criteria in diagnosing BV. MATERIALS & METHODS: This present study was conducted to validate diagnostic tests of BVin 120 married women in 2013. Amsel's criteria and Nugent scoring system were used to diagnose BV. Nugent scoring system was considered the gold standard and sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value of Amsel's criteria were compared with those of Nugent scoring system. RESULTS: Kappa coefficient was used to assess the diagnostic value of Nugent scoring system and Amsel's criteria. Kappa coefficient was found 0.8, which confirms the reliability of both diagnostic methods. McNemar test did not reveal a significant difference between Nugent scoring system and Amsel's criteria in terms of diagnosing BV. As compared to Nugent scoring system, Asmel's criteria enjoy sensitivity of 0.91, specificity of 0.91, positive predictive value of 0.86, negative predictive value of 0.94, and accuracy of 0.91. CONCLUSION: If lab equipment is not available for diagnosing BV, Amsel's criteria can be as good as Nugent scoring system at diagnosing this 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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it