Serology for the diagnosis of human hepatic cystic echinococcosis and its relation with cyst staging: A systematic review of the literature with meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The diagnosis of cystic echinococcosis (CE) is primarily based on imaging, while serology should be applied when imaging is inconclusive. CE cyst stage has been reported among the most important factors influencing the outcome of serodiagnosis. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the relation between cyst stage of hepatic CE and diagnostic sensitivity of serological tests, to evaluate whether their relation is a consistent finding and provide guidance for the interpretation of results of serological tests. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and Lilacs databases were searched on December 1st 2019. Original studies published after 2003 (year of publication of the CE cyst classification), reporting sensitivity of serological tests applied to the diagnosis of human hepatic CE, as diagnosed and staged by imaging, were included. The quality of studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Data from 14 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Summary estimates of sensitivities and 95% confidence intervals were obtained using random effects meta-analysis. Overall, test sensitivity was highest in the presence of CE2 and CE3 (CE3a and/or CE3b), and lowest in the presence of CE5 and CE4 cysts. ELISA, ICT and WB showed the highest sensitivities, while IHA performed worst. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: The results of our study confirm the presence of a clear and consistent relation between cyst stage and serological tests results. Limitations of evidence included the heterogeneity of the antigenic preparations used, which prevented to determine whether the relation between cyst stage and sensitivity was influenced by the type of antigenic preparation, the paucity of studies testing the same panel of sera with different assays, and the lack of studies assessing the performance of the same assay in both field and hospital-based settings. Our results indicate the absolute need to consider cyst staging when evaluating serological results of patients with hepatic CE.
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 | 0.018 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.040 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".