Seroconversion in syphilis screening without positive confirmatory tests points at early infection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction The chemiluminescence immunoassay (CLIA) is a widely used screening test for syphilis. A CLIA seroconversion in the absence of a positive line immunoassay (LIA) or rapid plasma reagin (RPR) could indicate either an early incubating syphilis or a false positive result. We aimed to evaluate the diagnostic value of such seroconversions. Methods We retrospectively analysed data of clients visiting the Centre for Sexual Health Amsterdam between July 2013 and August 2021 with a positive CLIA and a negative RPR and negative or indeterminate LIA (at time To), and a preceding visit (T−1) with a negative CLIA <6 months of To(‘unconfirmed CLIA seroconversion’). If available, data of follow-up visits (T1) <2 months of Towere also included. A syphilis diagnosis was confirmed if darkfield microscopy or PCR forTreponema pallidumwas positive at T0or T1, or if RPR and/or LIA were positive at T1. Results We included data of 107 clients with unconfirmed CLIA seroconversion. The value of CLIA seroconversion could not be established in 13 (12.1%) clients. In the remaining 94 clients, the unconfirmed CLIA seroconversion was confirmed as early syphilis in 72 (76.6%) clients and probable syphilis in 6 (6.4%) clients. In 16 (17.0%) clients, the unconfirmed CLIA seroconversion was regarded as a false positive reaction of whom 4 (5.3%) clients had a seroreversion of the CLIA at T1. Conclusion The majority of unconfirmed CLIA seroconversions represented early syphilis infections. Therefore, additionalT. pallidumPCR, a follow-up consultation or early treatment is recommended.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".