Sensitivity of APTIMA HPV E6/E7 mRNA test in comparison with hybrid capture 2 HPV DNA test for detection of high risk oncogenic human papillomavirus in 396 biopsy confirmed cervical cancers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The sensitivity of E6/E7 mRNA-based Aptima HPV test (AHPV; Hologic, Inc.) for detection of cervical cancer has been reported based on only a small number of cases. We determined the sensitivity of AHPV in comparison with the DNA-based Hybrid Capture 2 HPV test (HC2; Qiagen) for the detection of oncogenic HPV in a large number of cervical cancers at the time of diagnosis using cervical samples obtained in ThinPrep (Hologic). Samples yielding discordant results were genotyped using Linear Array assay (LA; Roche). Of 396 cases tested, AHPV detected 377 (sensitivity, 95.2%; 95%CI: 93.1-97.3), and HC2 376 (sensitivity, 94.9%; 95%CI: 92.7-97.1) with an agreement of 97.2% (kappa 0.7; 95%CI: 0.54-0.87). Among six AHPV+/HC2- cases, LA identified oncogenic HPV types in four including a type 73 and was negative in two. Among five AHPV-/HC2+ cases, LA detected oncogenic HPV types in two including a type 73 and was negative in three. Of 14 AHPV-/HC2- cases, 13 were genotyped. LA detected oncogenic HPV types in six, non-oncogenic types in three, and was negative in four. This is the largest study to demonstrate the sensitivity of AHPV for the detection of invasive cervical cancer and this assay showed equal sensitivity to HC2.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".