Evaluation of the utility and cost of secondary confirmatory testing for Neisseria gonorrhoeae identification from culture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Current guideline recommends the use of two identification methods for Neisseria gonorrhoeae. Matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF) is now used for primary identification and may be sufficient for definitive identification of N. gonorrhoeae. The performance of three secondary tests (BactiCard, RapID NH and NET test) were compared using 45 bacterial isolates, including 37 Neisseria species. These secondary tests demonstrated diminished specificity (67% - 88%) for N. gonorrhoeae compared with MALDI-TOF. Additionally, data from six clinical microbiology laboratories was used to compare confirmatory test costs and the agreement of results with MALDI-TOF. Discrepancies were documented for 9.4% of isolates, though all isolates (n= 288) identified by MALDI-TOF as N. gonorrhoeae were confirmed by the reference laboratory. These data demonstrate that MALDI-TOF alone is sufficient for N. gonorrhoeae identification, as secondary did not add diagnostic value but do add costs to the testing process.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".