MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4308495322 · doi:10.51731/cjht.2022.489

Rapid Syphilis Testing

2022· article· en· W4308495322 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Michelle Clark, Aleksandra Grobelna

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Health Technologies · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSyphilis Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSyphilisPoint-of-care testingMedicinePoint of carePsychological interventionHealth careTest (biology)Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)Family medicineNursingImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This Horizon Scan summarizes available information regarding rapid point-of-care testing for the detection of Treponema pallidum, the bacteria that causes syphilis. Rapid point-of-care testing to screen people for a possible case of syphilis allows health care providers to screen people where they are, rather than relying on people’s access to traditional health care settings. The rapid provision of test results can also help to guide treatment in the moment, rather than requiring additional appointments that could increase the number of people with active syphilis infections lost to follow-up. There are currently no point-of-care syphilis tests licensed for use by Health Canada; however, at least 1 multiplex syphilis and HIV-1/HIV-2 detection test could be licensed for use in Canada by the end of 2022. Based on the evidence reviewed, rapid tests for the detection of syphilis appear to be adequately sensitive and specific for screening. The use of point-of-care testing, at-home self-testing, at-home sample collection methods, and telemedicine and virtual care options may be interventions to consider as health care systems move forward and work to catch up on the screening backlog and missed tests related to the COVID-19 pandemic, and also find ways to connect with people who have previously been harder to reach.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.109
Threshold uncertainty score0.364

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1090.037

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.

Opus teacher head0.082
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.217 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Health TechnologiesSame topicSyphilis Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207