MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Sensitivity comparison of two Food and Drug Administration–licensed, triplex nucleic acid test automated assays for hepatitis B virus DNA detection and associated projections of United States yield

2011· article· en· W1525846655 on OpenAlexaff
Susan L. Stramer, David E. Krysztof, Jaye P. Brodsky, Tracy A. Fickett, Benjamin Reynolds, Soisaange Phikulsod, Sineeart Oota, Matthew Lin, J. Saldanha, Steven Kleinman

Bibliographic record

VenueTransfusion · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHepatitis B Virus Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHBsAgVirologyHepatitis B virusMedicineNatMultiplexFood and drug administrationHepatitis BWindow periodAntibodyImmunologySerologyVirusBiologyPharmacology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: There have been no comparisons of the relative sensitivity of the two Food and Drug Administration-licensed multiplex (MPX) nucleic acid test (NAT) systems (Procleix Ultrio [Gen-Probe], TIGRIS platform [Novartis]; and cobas TaqScreen MPX [Roche Molecular Systems], cobas s 201 platform [Roche Instrument Center]) for detecting hepatitis B virus (HBV)-infected donors in minipool sizes (MP) used in the United States. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Routine blood samples from Thailand were obtained from plasma units from 129 hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg)-negative, HBV NAT-yield donations. Blinded US testing included antibody to hepatitis B core antigen (anti-HBc), NAT using both manufacturers' systems (undiluted-individual donation [ID], in singlet and diluted 1:6 and 1:16 in triplicate), quantitative antibody to hepatitis B surface antigen, HBV DNA viral loads, and HBV genotyping. HBV yields in the United States were estimated using the incidence/window period (WP) model and compared to the calculated assay sensitivities. RESULTS: Eighty samples were classified as occult HBV (anti-HBc reactive) and 49 as WP (anti-HBc nonreactive). For US pool sizes, MPX detected significantly more samples than Ultrio (MPX MP6 vs. Ultrio MP16; p < 0.0001 for occult and WP). Ultrio MP16 results were not statistically different from Ultrio MP6 (p = 0.68 for occult; p = 0.42 for WP). There was no difference between platforms for MP sizes used in most of the world (MPX MP6 vs. Ultrio ID; p = 0.70 for occult and p = 0.34 for WP). Viral loads were higher in WP samples. Modeled yield estimates were consistent with measured assay sensitivity on the Thai donor samples. CONCLUSIONS: As used in the United States, MPX MP6 is more sensitive than Ultrio MP16, but the impact of this difference is mitigated by low numbers of HBV WP infections.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 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

Citations22
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransfusionSame topicHepatitis B Virus StudiesFrench-language works237,207