Performance of four commercial kits for laboratory diagnosis of urogenital mollicute infection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We have empirical evidence for the unsatisfactory performance of the most accessible commercial kits for mollicute culture. We aimed to evaluate the performance of the 4 commercial kits available for diagnosis of urogenital mollicute infections, compared with culture media (CMMC) produced in our research laboratory. We demonstrated that the NewProv kit had a sensitivity of 17% for Ureaplasma sp. and 33% for Mycoplasma hominis. The Laborclin kit presented a sensitivity of 25% for Ureaplasma sp., although M. hominis isolation was not observed during its evaluation. The kits from bioMérieux and International Microbio/Elitech each presented a sensitivity of 100% compared to the CMMC media. We also observed an important level of mollicute resistance (37.5%) to the main antibiotics used in treatment. The lack of diagnostic sensitivity of some commercial systems has consequences for antibiotic resistance, since it may lead to inadequate treatment of urogenital mollicute infections.
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 | 0.009 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".