MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2755514570 · doi:10.1093/ofid/ofx163.107

Use of Oral Fluid in a Rapid Syphilis Test Assay

2017· article· en· W2755514570 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Chelsea Shannon, Claire Bristow, Sasha Herbst de Cortina, Jennifer Chang, Jeffrey D. Klausner

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Forum Infectious Diseases · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSyphilis Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRapid plasma reaginSyphilisVenipunctureFingerstickPoint-of-care testingInternal medicineTiterImmunoassayImmunologyTreponemaAntibodyGastroenterologySurgeryHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)Endocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background From 2014 to 2015, the syphilis rate in the United States increased by 19%, reaching its highest rate since 1994. Currently, point-of-care syphilis assays use fingerstick or venipuncture whole blood to identify Treponema pallidum (TP) antibodies by qualitative immunoassay. However, patients and providers prefer oral fluid testing to whole blood testing. In this study, we aimed to determine whether a rapid syphilis test intended for use on whole blood could be used to detect TP antibodies in oral fluid. Methods Oral fluid was collected from 72 participants using the Super•SAL™ Oral Fluid Collection Device (Oasis Diagnostics®, Vancouver, WA). The device uses an absorbent cylindrical pad to collect and filter ~1 mlml of oral fluid. Oral fluid filtrate was tested using the SD Bioline Syphilis 3.0 rapid test (Alere Diagnostics, MA) following manufacturer directions for whole blood. TP particle agglutination (TPPA) and rapid plasma reagin (RPR) results derived from participants’ medical records were used as reference values. We used three different definitions as comparators: 1: TPPA reactive; 2: TPPA and RPR reactive and 3: TPPA reactive and RPR titer >1:4. Those with non-reactive TPPA and RPR results were considered seronegative. We calculated the sensitivity and specificity for definition 1 and sensitivity for definitions 2 and 3. We used the exact binomial method to determine 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results With definitions 1, 2, and 3, respectively, sensitivity was 83.3% (CI: 67.2, 93.6), 86.4% (CI: 65.1, 97.1), and 100% (CI: 71.5, 100). Specificity was 47.2% (CI: 36.5, 75.5). Conclusion The high sensitivity of the SD Bioline Syphilis 3.0 test using oral fluid suggests a strong potential for the development of accurate rapid oral syphilis tests. Sensitivity increased with higher RPR titer. False positive results may be due to the presence of non-venereal treponemal antibodies in oral fluid. Further research and development are needed to optimize specificity. 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)0.007
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.048
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.281 · 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

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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