MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2588273195 · doi:10.1093/ofid/ofw172.1014

Evaluating the Role of Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) Testing for the Diagnosis of Primary Syphilis: A Population-Cohort Study

2016· article· en· W2588273195 on OpenAlexaffabout
Caley Shukalek, Ranjani Somayaji, Bonita E. Lee, Ron Read, Sumana Fathima, Kevin Fonseca

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Forum Infectious Diseases · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSyphilis Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsProvincial Laboratory of Public HealthAlberta Health ServicesUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePolymerase chain reactionCohortSyphilisPopulationVirologyGeneticsFamily medicineInternal medicineHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)GeneBiologyEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background. There are syphilis outbreaks throughout North America, despite previous hopes of eradication. Serologic testing for syphilis requires multiple serologic tests which can yield varying interpretations. PCR testing has been implemented in many centres for use in epidemic settings such that public health departments can follow-up on cases that may initially be serologically negative. Smaller studies of PCR testing have demonstrated high levels of accuracy. We aim to assess the utility and characteristics of PCR testing in primary syphilis diagnosis in a large Canadian healthcare region. Methods. A cohort study from 2007 through 2013 was conducted using a provincial database of syphilis testing in adults. Patients with genital lesions who underwent PCR and serology testing (within −7 to +28 days of PCR testing) at two regional specialized sexually transmitted infection clinics were included. The primary outcome was the proportion of PCR positivity. Test characteristics were compared between multiple serologic tests to PCR testing. Herpes simplex virus (HSV) PCR testing was also performed due to similarity of lesion appearance. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated as the percent of results PCR positive divided by serology positive and PCR negative divided by serology negative, respectively. Results. A total of 3600 patients aged ≥18 years with genital lesions (clinically suspected to be syphilis) had PCR and serology testing performed. Of these, 114 (3.0%) were PCR positive. There were 14 patients who were PCR positive but had negative serology. Excluding those positive for HSV (1532; 43%), a total of 109 cases of primary syphilis occurred in the study period. 105 positive by PCR and 94 positive by serology. Our calculated sensitivity and specificity of 95.7% and 99.3%, respectively, are consistent with previously published data. Using a 2014 provincial estimated incidence of 3.3 cases/100,000, negative predicted value of syphilis PCR testing was 99.9% and similar to published values. Conclusion. In our large cohort study spanning seven years, PCR was highly sensitive and specific, with an excellent NPV in the diagnosis of primary syphilis. We recommend PCR testing as an adjunct to serology to aid in syphilis diagnosis in an outbreak setting. Disclosures. All authors: No reported disclosures

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
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 score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.101

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.304 · 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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen Forum Infectious DiseasesSame topicSyphilis Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207