MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2579529461 · doi:10.1186/s12936-017-1692-4

Performance of loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) for the diagnosis of malaria among malaria suspected pregnant women in Northwest Ethiopia

2017· article· en· W2579529461 on OpenAlexafffund
Banchamlak Tegegne, Sisay Getie, Wossenseged Lemma, Abu Naser Mohon, Dylan R. Pillai

Bibliographic record

VenueMalaria Journal · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMalaria Research and Control
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersAmhara Regional Health BureauCalgary Laboratory Services
KeywordsMalariaLoop-mediated isothermal amplificationRapid diagnostic testGold standard (test)Diagnosis of malariaMedicinePregnancyObstetricsGiemsa stainNested polymerase chain reactionTropical medicineImmunologyPlasmodium falciparumInternal medicinePolymerase chain reactionPathologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Malaria is a major public health problem and an important cause of maternal and infant morbidity in sub-Saharan Africa, including Ethiopia. Early and accurate diagnosis of malaria with effective treatment is the best strategy for prevention and control of complications during pregnancy and infant morbidity and mortality. However, laboratory diagnosis has relied on the identification of malaria parasites and parasite antigens in peripheral blood using Giemsa-stained microscopy or rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) which lack analytical and clinical sensitivity. The aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) for the diagnosis of malaria among malaria suspected pregnant women in Northwest Ethiopia. METHODS: A cross sectional study was conducted from January to April 2016. Pregnant women (n = 87) suspected of having malaria at six health centres were enrolled. A venous blood sample was collected from each study subject, and analysed for Plasmodium parasites by microscopy, RDT, and LAMP. Diagnostic accuracy outcome measures (sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, and Kappa scores) of microscopy, RDT and LAMP were compared to nested polymerase chain reaction (nPCR) as the gold standard. Specimen processing and reporting times were documented. RESULTS: Using nPCR as the gold standard technique, the sensitivity of microscopy and RDT was 90 and 70%, and the specificity was 98.7 and 97.4%, respectively. LAMP assay was 100% sensitive and 93.5% specific compared to nPCR. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed higher sensitivity of LAMP compared to microscopy and RDT for the detection of malaria in pregnancy. Increased sensitivity and ease of use with LAMP in point-of-care testing for malaria in pregnancy was noted. LAMP warrants further evaluation in intermittent screening and treatment programmes in pregnancy.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.258 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations54
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMalaria JournalSame topicMalaria Research and ControlFrench-language works237,207