{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03407601572739188, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0327653997378768, 'mean_word_length': 5.3625, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 1, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Comparison of Southern transfer hybridization and dot filter hybridization for detection of cervical human papillomavirus infection with types 6, 11, 16, 18, 31, 33, and 35.

A commercial dot filter hybridization kit (Virapap Kit) was compared with Southern transfer hybridization for the detection of seven types of human papillomavirus (HPV) in cervical specimens from 450 consecutive females attending a sexually transmitted diseases clinic. In comparison with Southern transfer hybridization, performed with the same probes used in the dot filter kit, the sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of dot filter hybridization were 90%, 94%, 74%, and 98%, respectively. Among patients with cervical cytologic dysplasia, HPV DNA was detected in 44% by dot filter hybridization and in 35% by Southern transfer hybridization. Although 26% of specimens positive by dot filter hybridization were not confirmed by Southern transfer hybridization, cervical dysplasia was detected in 5 (25%) of 20 with HPV DNA detected by dot filter hybridization alone, compared with 25 (8%) of those with no definitive evidence of HPV by either method (P = 0.009) and with 16 (30%) of 53 with HPV DNA detected by both methods (P = 0.7). The kappa statistic for interobserver and intraobserver reproducibility for interpretation of blots was similar for the two methods. The dot filter hybridization method evaluated appears to be a satisfactory alternative to Southern transfer hybridization for detection of HPV DNA.