Canadian Public Health Laboratory Network Laboratory Guidelines for the Use of Direct Tests to Detect Syphilis in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Treponema pallidum subsp. pallidum and/or its nucleic acid can be detected by various methods such as microscopy, rabbit infectivity test or polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests. The rabbit infectivity test for T. pallidum, although very sensitive, has been discontinued from most laboratories due to ethical issues related to the need for animal inoculation with live T. pallidum, the technically demanding procedure and long turnaround time for results, thus making it impractical for routine diagnostic use. Dark-field and phase-contrast microscopy are still useful at clinic- or hospital-based laboratories for near-bedside detection of T. pallidum in genital, skin or mucous lesions although their availability is decreasing. The lack of reliable and specific anti-T. pallidum antibodies and its inferior sensitivity to PCR may explain why the direct fluorescent antibody test for T. pallidum is not widely available for clinical use. Immunohistochemical staining for T. pallidum also depends on the availability of specific antibodies, and the method is only applicable for histopathological examination of biopsy and autopsy specimens necessitating an invasive specimen collection approach. With recent advances in molecular diagnostics, PCR is considered to be the most reliable, versatile and practical for laboratories to implement. In addition to being an objective and sensitive test for direct detection of Treponema pallidum subsp. pallidum DNA in skin and mucous membrane lesions, the resulting PCR amplicons from selected gene targets can be further characterized for antimicrobial (macrolide) susceptibility testing, strain typing and identification of T. pallidum subspecies.
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 | 0.022 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.046 | 0.017 |
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".