MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W24953348 · doi:10.1155/2005/597580

The Laboratory Diagnosis of Syphilis

2005· article· en· W24953348 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Infectious Diseases and Medical Microbiology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSyphilis Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsSt. John’s Health Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSyphilisMedicineVirologyHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Syphilis has several clinical manifestations, making laboratory testing a very important aspect of diagnosis. In North America, many unsuspected cases are discovered by laboratory testing. The etiological agent, Treponema pallidum, cannot be cultured, and there is no single optimal alternative test. Serological testing is the most frequently used approach in the laboratory diagnosis of syphilis. The present paper discusses the various serological and alternative tests currently available along with their limitations, and relates their results to the likely corresponding clinical stage of the disease. The need to use multiple tests is discussed, and the importance of quality control is noted. The complexity of syphilis serology means that the services of reference laboratories and clinical experts are often needed.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.576
Threshold uncertainty score0.602

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.228 · 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