Standardised protocol for a prospective international multicentre clinical-based evaluation of point-of-care tests for the screening of genital and extragenital chlamydial and gonococcal infections in men who have sex with men and for the screening of genital chlamydial, gonococcal and<i>Trichomonas vaginalis</i>infections in at risk women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: (TV)). Accurate point-of-care tests (POCTs) for screening of genital and extragenital CT, NG and TV infections are of great value and have been developed during recent decade. Several tests are commercially available and have shown encouraging performance compared with 'gold-standard' reference tests in laboratory-based studies. However, there is limited data on their clinical performance, including at the POC. Key populations, such as men who have sex with men (MSM), are at higher risk of these STIs at genital and extragenital sites and these STIs are often asymptomatic, especially in extragenital sites and in women. We will conduct a clinical-based evaluation to assess the performance characteristics and acceptability to end-users of molecular-based diagnostic technology for POC/near patient use of the Xpert CT/NG (Cepheid, Sunnyvale, California, USA) test for screening of genital, anorectal and pharyngeal CT and NG infections in MSM and the Xpert CT/NG and Xpert TV (Cepheid, Sunnyvale, California, USA) for screening of genital CT, NG and TV among women at risk for these STIs compared with gold-standard reference nucleic acid amplification tests. This master protocol outlines the overall research approach that will be used in seven countries. METHOD AND ANALYSES: Consecutive MSM and women at risk presenting at the clinical sites in high, and low- and middle-income countries will be enrolled. The POCTs to be evaluated are Xpert CT/NG and Xpert TV. All procedures will be carried out by trained healthcare staff and tests performed in strict accordance with the manufacturer's instructions. The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values for each POCT will be calculated. The study is ongoing with recruitment expected to be completed in all countries by mid-2022 to late-2022. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Prior to enrolment, this core protocol was independently peer-reviewed and approved by the research project review panel (RP2) of the WHO Department of Sexual and Reproductive Health and Research and by the WHO Ethics Review Committee (ERC). The core protocol has been slightly adapted accordingly to individual countries and adaptations approved by both RP2 and ERC, as well as all relevant institutional review boards at each participating site. Results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals and presented at relevant national/international conferences.
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 | 0.039 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.085 | 0.030 |
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".