Accuracy of Results Obtained by Performing a Second Ligase Chain Reaction Assay and PCR Analysis on Urine Samples with Positive or Near-Cutoff Results in the LCx Test for <i>Chlamydia trachomatis</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nucleic acid amplification assays such as the ligase chain reaction and PCR have encountered reproducibility problems. The initial extract and a newly extracted aliquot of urine specimens (n = 120) which had signal-to-cutoff (S/CO) ratios above 0.80 by the LCx Chlamydia assay were retested. Nucleic acid was extracted from an additional urine sample for testing by the AMPLICOR PCR Chlamydia assay. Fifteen percent (18 of 120) of the urine specimens were negative by all repeat tests (initial mean S/CO ratio by the LCx Chlamydia assay, 0.93; S/CO ratio range, 0.80 to 3.30). Repeat testing of the 102 specimens with possible positive results by the LCx Chlamydia assay by use of the initially extracted aliquot confirmed the results for 95 (93.1%) of the specimens; repeat testing of a newly extracted aliquot confirmed the results for 87 (85.3%) of the specimens. Twenty specimens had discordant results by the two repeat LCx Chlamydia assays. A total of 78 of 102 (76.5%) of the specimens were positive by the AMPLICOR PCR, and the AMPLICOR PCR confirmed the results for 82.1% (78 of 95) and 89.6% (78 of 87) of the specimens positive by the two repeat LCx Chlamydia assays, respectively. Some of the discrepancies observed by multiple repeat tests may have been due to specimen mislabeling or contamination during performance of the procedure rather than to the LCx Chlamydia assay. Both assays suffered from a lack of reproducibility on repeat testing with a small proportion of specimens, probably due to the presence of low levels of DNA, the presence of variable amounts of amplification inhibitors, and the loss of DNA during extraction.
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 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 | 0.007 | 0.019 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".