Multicenter Comparison of Nucleic Acid Amplification Tests for the Diagnosis of Rectal and Oropharyngeal Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae Infections
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research using nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) have repeatedly found rectal and oropharyngeal infections with Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae to be common and potentially more difficult to treat than genital infections. Unfortunately, public health and patient care efforts have been hampered by the lack of FDA-cleared NAATs with claims for anorectal or oropharyngeal samples. At the time of the initiation of this study, no commercially available assays had these claims. We formed a novel partnership among academic institutions and diagnostic manufacturers to address this public health need. From May 2018 through August 2019, we recruited 1108 women, 1256 men, and 26 transgender persons each of whom provided 3 anal and 3 oropharyngeal swab specimens. The 3 anal swabs were pooled into a single transport tube as were the 3 oropharyngeal swabs. The performance of each of three study assays was estimated by comparison to the composite result and relative to one another. Percent positivity for chlamydia was 5.9 and 1.2% from anal and oropharyngeal specimens, respectively, compared to 4.2 and 4.1% for gonorrhea. Sensitivity for chlamydia detection ranged from 81.0 to 95.1% and 82.8 to 100% for anal and oropharyngeal specimens, respectively. Gonorrhea sensitivity ranged from 85.9 to 99.0% and 74.0 to 100% for anal and oropharyngeal samples, respectively. Specificity estimates were ≥ 98.9% for all assays, organisms, and sample types. Although there was heterogeneity between sensitivity estimates, these assays offer better ability to detect extragenital infections than culture and potential solutions for providing appropriate sexual health care for populations in which these infections are of concern.
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 | 0.014 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".