MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Magnetic Bead-enhanced Proximity Extension Assay For Quantitative Detection of Treponemal and Lipoidal Antibodies in Syphilis Diagnosis

2025· article· W4416402188 on OpenAlexaff
Hanran Lei, Jiumei Hu, Jeffery Burke, Alex Trick, Tza‐Huei Wang

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldMedicine
TopicSyphilis Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsPrompt (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSyphilisTreponemaTiterAntibodyRapid plasma reaginAntibody titer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Syphilis is one of the fastest-growing sexually transmitted infections in the U.S. and remains a significant global concern. The current diagnostic method relies on the rapid plasma reagin (RPR) test for screening lipoidal antibodies and the Treponema pallidum particle aggregation (TPPA) test for confirming treponemal antibodies, each with its own limitations. Current treponemal tests provide only qualitative results, while lipoidal tests rely on subjective interpretation, that is prone to bias and has poor quantification accuracy, making clinical decision-making challenging. To address these limitations, we developed a magnetic bead-enhanced proximity extension assay employing lipid and protein coatings for the quantitative detection of treponemal and lipoidal antibodies in syphilis diagnosis. Our assay successfully quantified different titer samples, ranging from a 1:20 to 1:5120 TPPA titer for treponemal antibodies and from a 1:1 to 1:64 RPR titer for lipoidal antibodies.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.291 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSyphilis Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207