Assessment of the possible inhibitory effect of carrageenan in human papillomavirus DNA testing by polymerase chain reaction amplification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We assessed carrageenan's potential to inhibit human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA extraction and amplification in vaginal swab samples collected in a trial, assessing the efficacy of a carrageenan-based gel against HPV infections. Experiment #1 consisted of adding gel (carrageenan-containing or placebo) to swabs and comparing HPV DNA detection by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) to unmanipulated samples collected from the same participants. For Experiments #2 and #3, we tested vaginal samples for inhibition by addition of an internal control and amplification by real-time PCR. Experiment #4 investigated carrageenan's interference with the extraction process by assessing HPV45 detectability in undiluted and diluted HPV45 positive samples (n = 3) with carrageenan versus no gel. In Experiment #1, there was a loss of HPV positivity with the addition of carrageenan (n = 9), but none with placebo gel (n = 5). In Experiments #2 and #3, the absence of the amplified product was observed in samples from the carrageenan arm: 3.3% (1/30) and 0.5% (1/199) of samples. In Experiment #4, HPV45 was not detected in undiluted carrageenan-containing samples, but after 1/50 dilution, the same HPV45 copy number was detected. Carrageenan does not affect the DNA extraction process, and inhibition of HPV DNA amplification by carrageenan occurs infrequently.
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 | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".