Congo Red Dot Paper Test for Antenatal Triage and Rapid Identification of Preeclampsia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Proteins in the urine of women with preeclampsia (PE) bind Congo Red dye (urine congophilia). We sought to determine the diagnostic performance of a paper-based point-of-care test detecting urine congophilia for rapid triage and diagnosis of PE. METHODS: Prospective cohort study conducted in 346 consecutive pregnant women evaluated for PE in the Labour and Delivery triage unit at our institution. The Congo Red Dot (CRD) Paper Test (index test) was performed on fresh urine samples. The CRD Paper Test results were compared to an expert adjudicated diagnosis in each case. The accuracy of the CRD Paper Test was also compared to urine and serum analytes (placental growth factor and soluble fms-like tyrosine kinase-1) previously proposed as diagnostic aids for PE. FINDINGS: During the first triage visit, 32% (112/346) of women received a clinical diagnosis of PE. Yet, 63% (217/346) were admitted for in-patient diagnostic work-up or delivery. The CRD Paper Test was positive in 25% (86/346) of the cases. Adjudication confirmed PE in 28% (96/346) of all cases. The CRD Paper Test outperformed measured serum and urine markers (80·2% sensitivity, 89·2% specificity, 92·1% negative predictive value, 86·7% accuracy). The pre-test, positive and negative post-test probabilities were 27·7%, 74·0%, and 8·0%, respectively. Of women who were discharged undelivered, 38% (133/346) had at least one additional triage visit and the interval between the last negative and first positive CRD Paper Test was 12 (interquartile range, [5-34]) days. INTERPRETATION: The CRD Paper Test is a simple, non-invasive, "sample-in/answer-out" point-of-care clinical tool for rapid identification of PE. FUNDING: Saving Lives at Birth Program and NICHD.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".