Comparison of Three Assays for Detection of Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae in SurePath Pap Samples and the Role of Pre- and Postcytology Testing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chlamydia trachomatis andNeisseria gonorrhoeae are common causes of sexually transmitted infections, and there is interest in screening SurePath liquid-based Pap (L-Pap) samples with Aptima Combo 2 (AC2), Amplicor (AMP), and ProbeTec ET (PT) assays. SurePath L-Pap samples and a cervical swab (CS) were collected from 394 women attending health clinics in Hamilton and Toronto, ON, Canada. L-Pap samples were tested with the three assays prior to being processed for cytology, and the CS sample was tested with AC2. The prevalence of C. trachomatis was 8.9%, and that ofN. gonorrhoeae was 1.5%. By using the posi-tives from CS testing, as well as CS negatives corresponding to L-Pap samples that tested positive in 2 of 3 assays, the sensitivities of AC2, AMP, and PT for C. trachomatis in precytology samples were calculated to be 97.1 % (34 of 35 positive samples were de-tected), 91.4 % (32 of 35 were detected), and 77.1 % (27 of 35 were detected), respectively. Six women were infected withN. gonor-rhoeae. After cytology processing, the results of testing the remaining liquid in the L-Pap vial and the cell-enriched fraction for C. trachomatis by AC2 showed positive agreements of 98.9 % (kappa [k], 0.93) and 98.7 % (k, 0.92), respectively, with the results of testing precytology L-Pap samples. Although all testing showed high specificity, testing for C. trachomatis by AC2 was signifi-cantly more sensitive than testing by PT for SurePath samples (P 0.02). Newer versions of AMP (Cobas 4800) and PT (Qxwith XTR technology) need published evaluations for detecting C. trachomatis and N. gonorrhoeae in L-Pap samples. C. trachomatis testing can be performed with similar results on pre- and postcytology SurePath samples. Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae infections arethe most frequently reported bacterial sexually transmitted dis-
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 | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".