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
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".