Rapid and Sensitive RT-QuIC Detection of Human Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease Using Cerebrospinal Fluid
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Fast, definitive diagnosis of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD) is important in assessing patient care options and transmission risks. Real-time quaking-induced conversion (RT-QuIC) assays of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and nasal-brushing specimens are valuable in distinguishing CJD from non-CJD conditions but have required 2.5 to 5 days. Here, an improved RT-QuIC assay is described which identified positive CSF samples within 4 to 14 h with better analytical sensitivity. Moreover, analysis of 11 CJD patients demonstrated that while 7 were RT-QuIC positive using the previous conditions, 10 were positive using the new assay. In these and further analyses, a total of 46 of 48 CSF samples from sporadic CJD patients were positive, while all 39 non-CJD patients were negative, giving 95.8% diagnostic sensitivity and 100% specificity. This second-generation RT-QuIC assay markedly improved the speed and sensitivity of detecting prion seeds in CSF specimens from CJD patients. This should enhance prospects for rapid and accurate ante mortem CJD diagnosis. IMPORTANCE: A long-standing problem in dealing with various neurodegenerative protein misfolding diseases is early and accurate diagnosis. This issue is particularly important with human prion diseases, such as CJD, because prions are deadly, transmissible, and unusually resistant to decontamination. The recently developed RT-QuIC test allows for highly sensitive and specific detection of CJD in human cerebrospinal fluid and is being broadly implemented as a key diagnostic tool. However, as currently applied, RT-QuIC takes 2.5 to 5 days and misses 11 to 23% of CJD cases. Now, we have markedly improved RT-QuIC analysis of human CSF such that CJD and non-CJD patients can be discriminated in a matter of hours rather than days with enhanced sensitivity. These improvements should allow for much faster, more accurate, and practical testing for CJD. In broader terms, our study provides a prototype for tests for misfolded protein aggregates that cause many important amyloid diseases, such as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and tauopathies.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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".