Vaginal Swabs Are Appropriate Specimens for Diagnosis of Genital Tract Infection with <i>Chlamydia trachomatis</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Because self-collected vaginal swabs (VS) are potentially very useful for screening asymptomatic women for Chlamydia trachomatis infection, a multicenter study evaluated that specimen with nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs). The objective was to determine whether VS are equal to Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-cleared specimens (cervical swabs and first-catch urines [FCU]) for diagnosing genital chlamydial infection. All NAATs then commercially available (October 1996 to October 1999) were used (ligase chain reaction [LCx Probe System; Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Park, Ill.]; PCR [Amplicor; Roche Molecular Systems, Branchburg, N.J.]; and transcription-mediated amplification, [Amplified CT Assay; Gen-Probe Inc., San Diego, Calif.]). NAATs were performed on FCU, urethral, cervical, self- and clinician-collected VS. Sensitivity was compared to isolation using cervical and urethral swabs. Agreement of NAAT results between VS and cervical swabs or FCU was calculated. Specimens from 2,517 15- to 25-year-old asymptomatic women attending clinics at nine different centers were evaluated. Results with self- and clinician-collected VS were equivalent and were at least as good as results with FCU and cervical swabs. Across all sites, summary specificities for all specimens were >99%. Among culture-positive women, NAAT sensitivity with VS (93%) was as high as or higher than NAAT sensitivity with cervical swabs (91%) or FCU (80.6%) or culture of cervical swabs (83.5%). VS are appropriate specimens for diagnosing chlamydial genital tract infection by NAATs. That patients can efficiently collect them offers important benefits for screening programs. It would be beneficial for public health programs if the NAAT manufacturers sought FDA clearance for this specimen.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".