Serum IgG1 and IgG3 Antibody Responses to <i>Chlamydia trachomatis</i> Pgp3 and Hsp60 in Tubal Factor Infertility
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Our goal was to investigate IgG1 and IgG3 antibody responses to Chlamydia trachomatis proteins Pgp3 and Hsp60 in women with tubal factor infertility (TFI). Our goal was to determine the role of these biomarkers in the diagnosis of C. trachomatis-associated TFI, and assess their sensitivity and specificity for detecting tubal pathology. METHODS: Serum samples were collected from 258 subfertile women, and 34 women positive for C. trachomatis by nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT). IgG1 and IgG3 antibodies to Pgp3 and Hsp60 were measured using enzyme immune assays. RESULTS: Pgp3 IgG1 antibodies were detected in 68.2% of TFI cases and 31.8% of controls (non-TFI), while Hsp60 IgG1 antibodies were found in 36.4% of TFI cases. Pgp3 IgG1 had the highest sensitivity for TFI (68.2%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 45.1%-86.1%), while Hsp60 IgG3 was the most specific (93.6%; 95% CI, 89.7-96.4). Antibody levels increased with tubal damage severity. Among the 34 NAAT-positive women, 78.8% were positive for Pgp3 IgG1. CONCLUSIONS: Pgp3 IgG1 antibody was a sensitive marker for detecting C. trachomatis-related TFI, while Hsp60 IgG3 antibody was highly specific. These findings suggest that Pgp3 and Hsp60 antibodies and antibody subclass testing may be useful diagnostic tools for assessing TFI.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".