Trends in Asymptomatic Nasopharyngeal Streptococcus pneumoniae Carriage with qPCR and Culture Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We previously reported trends in pneumococcal nasopharyngeal carriage in the post-PCV13 era as detected by conventional culture methods. Our current aim is to assess if there are fundamental differences in the clinical and demographic features of children who have pneumococcal carriage detected by qPCR compared with culture analysis. The CASPER team conducted point-prevalence surveys in 2016 in healthy children in Calgary to determine trends in overall and serotype-specific pneumococcal nasopharyngeal carriage. Being 18 months of age (p = 0.009), having at least one sibling under 2 years of age (p = 0.04), having only sibling(s) over 2 years of age (p = 0.001), and childcare attendance (p = 0.005) were associated with carriage by qPCR methods only. Having only sibling(s) older than 2 years of age was associated with carriage detected by both qPCR and culture methods (p = 0.001). No clinical factors were associated with carriage detected by both qPCR and culture compared to qPCR methods only. Both analyses are suitable methods to detect carriage; however, qPCR analysis is more sensitive and more cost-effective. As there are no fundamental differences in the children that have pneumococcal nasopharyngeal carriage detectable by qPCR methods compared to conventional culture methods, molecular analysis may be a preferable option for future carriage studies.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".