Acridine orange fluorescent microscopy is more sensitive than India ink light microscopy in the rapid detection of cryptococcosis among CrAg positive HIV patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: India ink microscopy on cerebrospinal fluid is still utilized in resource limited settings for the diagnosis of cryptococcal meningitis despite its poor sensitivity. We hypothesized that staining fungal nucleic acids with fluorescent dyes instead of the capsule with India ink might improve sensitivity for the diagnosis of cryptococcal meningitis. METHODS: We enrolled 96 HIV-infected participants with cryptococcal meningitis who provided 194 CSF specimens at serial time points in Kampala, Uganda. Cryptococcosis was diagnosed by cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) cryptococcal antigen (CrAg) test and only positive samples were included. We stained CSF with India ink and acridine orange. We cultured the same samples on standard fungal media. We compared acridine orange to CrAg, India ink and CSF culture. RESULTS: Acridine orange was more sensitive (96%) than India ink (79%) with reference to CSF CrAg. Acridine orange and India ink had a statistically significant difference (P<0.001) with a 25% correlation for detection of Cryptococcus yeasts. India ink had more negative results (22%) than acridine orange (4%). The sensitivity for India ink increased (86%) while that of acridine orange did not change (97%) when compared to CSF culture. However, both India ink and acridine orange had poor predictive values with reference to culture. CONCLUSION: Acridine orange is a better alternative to India ink in the rapid detection of cryptococcosis among CrAg positive HIV patients.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".