MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417258307 · doi:10.1016/j.ebiom.2025.106057

Evaluation of an HPV16-L1 antibody rapid test for oropharyngeal cancer diagnosis: diagnostic accuracy and challenges in real-world settings

2025· article· en· W4417258307 on OpenAlexafffund
Johannes M A Kusters, Nicole Brenner, Johannes A. Bogaards, Steffi Silling, Mariam El-Zein, Penelope Gray, Hanna Kann, Eduardo L. Franco, Matti Lehtinen, Andreas Dietz, Simon Laban, Jens Peter Klußmann, Ulrike Wieland, Tim Waterboer

Bibliographic record

VenueEBioMedicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHead and Neck Cancer Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNational Research Council CanadaBundesministerium für Bildung und ForschungUniversität zu KölnMinistry of HealthDeutsches Krebsforschungszentrum
KeywordsChristian ministryDiagnostic accuracyCancerTest (biology)AntibodyMEDLINE

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Diagnostic assays have been introduced to diagnose human papillomavirus (HPV)-driven oropharyngeal cancer (HPV-OPC), including those identifying HPV16-L1 antibodies. This study aims to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of an HPV16-L1 antibody rapid test for HPV-OPC, and its performance in individuals likely to have HPV16-L1 antibodies from causes other than HPV-OPC. METHODS: Serum samples (n = 235) from three study populations were tested using a CE-certified serological HPV16-L1 antibody rapid test (Prevo-Check®) at the German National Reference Center for Papillomaviruses. Laboratory personnel were blinded to participant characteristics and followed the manufacturer's instructions. The three study populations consisted of: (1) patients with HPV16-positive or -negative OPC (n = 83), (2) bivalent (HPV16/18) vaccine recipients (n = 50), with paired baseline and one-month post-third-dose serum samples, and (3) naturally HPV16 infected young adults (n = 26), with paired serum samples before and after HPV16 seroconversion. FINDINGS: In the study population with patients with OPC, the sensitivity of the HPV16-L1 antibody rapid test to detect HPV-OPC was 25.0% (95% CI: 13.6, 39.6), and its specificity was 97.1% (95% CI: 85.1, 99.9). The positive predictive value was 92.3% (95% CI: 64.0, 99.8) and negative predictive value 48.6% (95% CI: 36.4, 60.8). In the other study populations, the test was negative for all pre-vaccination samples, and all samples collected before incident natural HPV16 infection. Nearly all post-vaccination samples (98.0%), and one-third of the samples after natural HPV16 infection (34.6%) tested positive in the HPV16-L1 antibody rapid test. INTERPRETATION: The HPV16-L1 antibody test has low diagnostic accuracy and cannot reliably distinguish different sources of HPV16-L1 antibodies. Therefore, this type of assays is not suitable for screening and detection of HPV16-driven OPC. FUNDING: This study is supported by the Ministry of Research, Technology and Space (BMFTR) core bvfunding provided to DKFZ. The NRC for Papilloma- and Polyomaviruses is supported by the Ministry of Health (BMG, grant no. 1369-401).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.834
Threshold uncertainty score0.634

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.425
Teacher spread0.338 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEBioMedicineSame topicHead and Neck Cancer StudiesFrench-language works237,207