Comparison of a nested polymerase chain reaction restriction fragment length polymorphism method, the PATH antigen detection method, and microscopy for the detection and identification of malaria parasites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A nested polymerase chain reaction restriction fragment length polymorphism (PCRRFLP) method, the PATH antigen detection method, and light microscopy were compared for their capacity to detect and identify Plasmodium species. One hundred and thirty-six blood specimens obtained from patients suspected of having malaria were examined by each of the three methods. Forty-four specimens were positive for malaria using microscopy as the "gold standard". The sensitivity for nested PCR was 100%, and the specificity was 98%. For the detection of Plasmodium falciparum, the antigen detection method had a sensitivity of 100% and a specificity of 97%. Species identification obtained using PCRRFLP was identical or superior to light microscopy in 42 cases (96%). Although the nested PCRRFLP method was more sensitive and specific, the rapid turnaround time and high sensitivity of the antigen detection method makes it a useful adjunct to standard microscopy.Key words: malaria, PCRRFLP, antigen detection.
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 | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".