Using Reference Quantitative Polymerase Chain Reaction to Assess the Clinical Performance of the Paracheck-Pf® Rapid Diagnostic Test in a Field Setting in Uganda
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Malaria rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) are widely used in clinical and surveillance settings. However, the performance of most RDTs has not been characterized at parasite densities below detection by microscopy. We present findings from Uganda, where RDT results from 491 participants with suspected malaria were correlated with quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR)-defined parasitemia. Compared with qPCR, the sensitivity and specificity of the RDT for Plasmodium falciparum mono-infections were 76% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 68–83%) and 95% (95% CI: 92–97%), respectively. The sensitivity of the RDT at parasite densities between 0.2 and 200 parasites/μL was surprisingly high (87%, 95% CI: 74–94%). The high sensitivity of the RDT is likely because of histidine-rich protein 2 from submicroscopic infections, gametocytes, or sequestered parasites. These findings underscore the importance of evaluating different RDTs in field studies against qPCR reference testing to better define the sensitivity and specificity, particularly at low parasite densities.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".