Laboratory evaluation of two point-of-care test kits for the identification of infectious syphilis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Syphilis is a sexually transmitted disease that can have atypical clinical presentations. Conventional laboratory tests to confirm the diagnosis are not rapid enough to affect clinical decision on treatment and contact tracing. Rapid point-of-care tests (POCT) can be useful for control of infectious diseases; however, no POCT for syphilis detection is currently available in Canada. The aim of this study is to evaluate two POCTs (RevealTM Rapid TP (Treponema pallidum) Antibody test and DPP® Syphilis Screen and Confirm test) for detection of infectious syphilis. Methods: One hundred serum samples with known syphilis serological status, based on treponemal and non-treponemal test results, were analysed in the laboratory with two POCTs by two independent operators in a blind fashion. Results were analysed to evaluate their ability to detect infectious syphilis. Results: The Reveal Rapid TP Antibody POCT showed an overall sensitivity of 95.0% and a specificity of 83.3%, while the DPP Syphilis Screen and Confirm POCT showed a sensitivity of 87.5% and a specificity of 98.3%. Both POCTs gave a sensitivity of 100% on active syphilis samples with Venereal Disease Research Laboratory (VDRL) titres of greater than 1:4, but their sensitivities decreased for samples with low VDRL titres. Both POCTs gave weakly or very weakly reactive results on 11.3%–25.0% of the treponemal antibody positive samples. Conclusion: This laboratory evaluation has shown promising results for both POCTs to detect infectious syphilis. Further evaluations in the field would be required to confirm this preliminary finding.
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 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".