MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2171584441 · doi:10.1128/jcm.43.1.127-131.2005

Ability of New APTIMA CT and APTIMA GC Assays To Detect <i>Chlamydia trachomatis</i> and <i>Neisseria gonorrhoeae</i> in Male Urine and Urethral Swabs

2005· article· en· W2171584441 on OpenAlexaff
Max Chernesky, David H. Martin, Edward W. Hook, Dean Willis, Jeanne A. Jordan, S. Wang, Jeannine R. Lane, D. Fuller, J Schachter

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Microbiology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicReproductive tract infections research
Canadian institutionsSt. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeisseria gonorrhoeaeChlamydia trachomatisNucleic Acid Amplification TestsMultiplexAsymptomaticUrineChlamydialesGonorrheaMedicineChlamydiaceaeChlamydiaFalse positive paradoxVirologyBiologyMicrobiologyInternal medicineImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A clinical evaluation was conducted in six North American centers to determine the ability of APTIMA CT (ACT) and APTIMA GC (AGC) nucleic acid amplification assays to detect Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae infections in 1,322 men by testing their urethral swabs and first-catch urine (FCU). The results obtained with ACT and AGC assays were compared to an infected patient status determined by testing the specimens with the APTIMA Combo 2 and the BD ProbeTec energy transfer multiplex assays. Symptoms did not influence the values. Positive and negative agreements of the ACT and AGC assays for individual specimens were high, with each comparator assay ranging between 94.3 and 100% for positives and 93.9 and 99.4% for negatives. The ACT and AGC assays performed on noninvasive specimens such as FCU effectively identified C. trachomatis or N. gonorrhoeae infections in symptomatic and asymptomatic men and should be suitable for screening male populations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.327 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations75
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical MicrobiologySame topicReproductive tract infections researchFrench-language works237,207