Evaluating the MedMira Multiplo® Complete Syphilis (TP/nTP) antibody test in a sexually transmitted infection clinic in Ottawa, Canada: increased rapid diagnosis and improved antibiotic stewardship
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Syphilis now affects every population and serology is the mainstay of diagnosis. The issue is that serology has a turnaround time of several days. One solution is point-of-care tests (POCTs), which can provide results in minutes. We consequently evaluated the MedMira Multiplo® Complete Syphilis Test in an STI clinic in Ottawa, Canada. METHODS: Anyone 16 + years old who consented and was undergoing syphilis testing at our clinic was eligible. Those who enrolled completed the POCT and saw a clinician to review their result. We calculated sensitivities and specificities for the POCT, compared to serology and diagnosis. RESULTS: From August 2024 to May 2025, we performed 622 syphilis POCTs on 600 participants. Compared to serology when chemiluminescent microparticle immunoassay (CMIA) and Treponema pallidum particle agglutination (TP.PA) tests were reactive, the POCT treponemal (TP) test had a sensitivity of 90.1% and specificity of 97.9%. Compared to any dilution of rapid plasma reagin (RPR), the POCT non-treponemal (nTP) test had a sensitivity of 82.5% and specificity of 99.1%. When we stratified POCT nTP results based on RPR titers, the POCT nTP had a sensitivity of 94.1% for RPR dilutions ≥ 1:8. Compared to serology, the POCT identified 91.4% of new syphilis infections and 97% of infectious syphilis. CONCLUSIONS: POCTs informed clinical syphilis management. While most research has focused on how POCTs can facilitate treatment, in our study, there was a second major utility: to withhold antibiotics when recommended as empiric treatment but when the patient does not have active syphilis. Future research on syphilis POCTs should focus on their abilities to rule in and rule out infections. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT06586905 (Registered Sept 4, 2024).
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".