MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392373994 · doi:10.1186/s12879-024-09018-4

Independent clinic-based evaluation of point-of-care testing for the screening of Chlamydia trachomatis, Neisseria gonorrhoea and Trichomonas vaginalis in women-at-risk in Australia, Guatemala, Morocco, and South Africa

2024· article· en· W4392373994 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Mark Shephard, Susan Matthews, Ranmini Kularatne, Kelly Andrewartha, Karel Blondeel, Christian S. Álvarez, Elsy Camey, Amina Hançali, E Müller, Aurelie Haw, Hicham Oumzil, Daniel Golparian, Dorian E. Ramírez, James Kiarie, Firdavs Kurbonov, Massimo Mirandola, Rosanna Ŵ. Peeling, Ronaldo Silva, Soe Soe Thwin, Magnus Unemo, Igor Toskin

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Infectious Diseases · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicReproductive tract infections research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersGovernment of CanadaUNICEFWorld Health Organization
KeywordsGeneXpert MTB/RIFTrichomonas vaginalisMedicineChlamydia trachomatisNucleic Acid Amplification TestsChlamydiaPoint-of-care testingGynecologyTrichomonasMedical microbiologyNeisseria gonorrhoeaeGonorrheaObstetricsInternal medicineFamily medicineVirologyHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)TuberculosisImmunologyBiologyPathologySputum

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: In 2018, the World Health Organization commenced a multi-country validation study of the Cepheid GeneXpert for a range of molecular-based point-of-care (POC) tests in primary care settings. One study arm focused on the evaluation of POC tests for screening 'women at risk' for chlamydia (CT), gonorrhoea (NG) and trichomonas (TV) in four countries - Australia, Guatemala, Morocco and South Africa. METHODS: Study participants completed a pre-test questionnaire which included demographics, clinical information and general questions on POC testing (POCT). Two vaginal swab samples (either self-collected or clinician collected) from each patient were tested on the GeneXpert at the POC and at a reference laboratory using quality-assured nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs). RESULTS: One thousand three hundred and eighty-three women were enrolled: 58.6% from South Africa, 29.2% from Morocco, 6.2% from Guatemala, and 6.0% from Australia. 1296 samples for CT/NG and 1380 samples for TV were tested by the GeneXpert and the reference NAAT. The rate of unsuccessful tests on the GeneXpert was 1.9% for CT, 1.5% for NG and 0.96% for TV. The prevalence of CT, NG and TV was 31%, 13% and 23%, respectively. 1.5% of samples were positive for all three infections; 7.8% were positive for CT and NG; 2.4% were positive for NG and TV; and 7.3% were positive for CT and TV. Compared to reference NAATs, pooled estimates of sensitivity for the GeneXpert tests were 83.7% (95% confidence intervals 69.2-92.1) for CT, 90.5% (85.1-94.1) for NG and 64.7% (58.1-70.7) for TV (although estimates varied considerably between countries). Estimates for specificity were ≥96% for all three tests both within- and between-countries. Pooled positive and negative likelihood ratios were: 32.7 ([CI] 21.2-50.5) and 0.17 (0.08-0.33) for CT; 95.3 (36.9-245.7) and 0.10 (0.06-0.15) for NG; and 56.5 (31.6-101.1) and 0.35 (0.27-0.47) for TV. CONCLUSION: This multi-country evaluation is the first of its kind world-wide. Positive likelihood ratios, as well as specificity estimates, indicate the GeneXpert POC test results for CT, NG and TV were clinically acceptable for ruling in the presence of disease. However, negative likelihood ratios and variable sensitivity estimates from this study were poorer than expected for ruling out these infections, particularly for TV. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Ethics approval to conduct the ProSPeRo study was granted by the WHO Ethics Review Committee, as well as local ethics committees from all participating countries.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.058
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.298 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations7
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Infectious DiseasesSame topicReproductive tract infections researchFrench-language works237,207