Evaluation of the Candigen Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay for Quantitative Detection of Candida Species Antigen
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the clinical utility of an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay method for the quantitative detection of Candida species antigen (Candigen; Biomerica Inc, Newport Beach, Calif) in patients with suspected disseminated candidiasis. METHODS: Specimens of blood or cerebrospinal fluid from 75 patients with suspected disseminated candidiasis were analyzed by the Candigen test. Results were compared with those obtained by culture and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) analysis. RESULTS: Thirty-seven patients had specimens positive for Candida species by either culture or PCR. Of these specimens, 4 were positive by both culture and PCR, 21 were culture positive but PCR negative, and 12 were PCR positive but culture negative. Five specimens were positive by the Candigen test, all of which were PCR positive but culture negative. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of the Candigen test compared to culture plus PCR were 13.5%, 100%, 100%, and 54.3%, respectively. Turnaround time for the Candigen test was approximately 3 hours. CONCLUSION: The Candigen test showed excellent specificity and turnaround time, but its poor sensitivity coupled with its inability to provide species information or susceptibility data make its clinical utility questionable.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".