Canadian Public Health Laboratory Network laboratory Guidelines for the Use of Serological Tests (excluding point‐of‐care tests) for the Diagnosis of Syphilis in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Syphilis, caused by the bacterium Treponema pallidum subsp. pallidum, is an infection recognized since antiquity. It was first reported at the end of the 15th century in Europe. Infections may be sexually transmitted as well as spread from an infected mother to her fetus or through blood transfusions. The laboratory diagnosis of syphilis infection is complex. Because this organism cannot be cultured, serology is used as the principal diagnostic method. Some of the issues related to serological diagnoses are that antibodies take time to appear after infection, and serology screening tests require several secondary confirmatory tests that can produce complex results needing interpretation by experts in the field. Traditionally, syphilis screening was performed using either rapid plasma reagin or Venereal Disease Research Laboratory tests, and confirmed by treponemal tests such as MHA-TP, TPPA or FTA-Abs. Currently, that trend is reversed, ie, most of the laboratories in Canada now screen for syphilis using treponemal enzyme immunoassays and confirm the status of infection using rapid plasma reagin or Venereal Disease Research Laboratory tests; this approach is often referred to as the reverse algorithm. This chapter reviews guidelines for specimen types and sample collection, treponemal and non-treponemal tests utilized in Canada, the current status of serological tests for syphilis in Canada, the complexity of serological diagnosis of syphilis infection and serological testing algorithms. Both traditional and reverse sequence algorithms are recommended and the algorithm used should be based on a combination of local disease epidemiology, test volumes, performance of the proposed assays and available resources.
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 | 0.012 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.046 | 0.024 |
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".