MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Direct Screening of Clinical Specimens for Multiple Respiratory Pathogens Using the Genaco Respiratory Panels 1 and 2

2006· article· en· W1963809761 on OpenAlexaff
John Brunstein, Éva Thomas

Bibliographic record

VenueDiagnostic Molecular Pathology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory viral infections research
Canadian institutionsChildren's & Women's Health Centre of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLoginComputer scienceWorld Wide WebInternet privacyLogo (programming language)Register (sociolinguistics)Personally identifiable informationComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We report here on the results of a pilot study comparing our clinical diagnostic virology laboratory's current methods of respiratory pathogen detection against the Genaco Respiratory Infections Panels 1 and 2. These assays employ xMap (Luminex) liquid phase bead conjugated array technology to facilitate automated detection of PCR and RT-PCR products, which provides potential for levels of assay multiplexing above those currently practical with either conventional gel-resolved or real-time methods. In the study presented here we used the Genaco panels to simultaneously screen previously analyzed clinical specimens (nasopharyngeal washings) for twenty-one important pathogens. Our results indicate the Genaco panels met or exceeded our current methods' sensitivity and specificity although allowing for detection of a wider range of infectious agents than practical by current diagnostic laboratory practices. In addition, the Genaco panels provided data on the presence of multiple respiratory pathogens in single specimens, which would otherwise be missed in most instances. To our knowledge, this study represents the first trial of these panels on standard clinical specimens in a routine diagnostic setting.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.128
GPT teacher head0.417
Teacher spread0.289 · 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

Citations72
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiagnostic Molecular PathologySame topicRespiratory viral infections researchFrench-language works237,207