External quality assessment for the detection of blood‐borne viruses in plasma by nucleic acid amplification technology: the first human immunodeficiency virus and hepatitis B virus studies (HIV EQA/1 and HBV EQA/1) and the fifth hepatitis C virus study (HCV EQA/5)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: This External Quality Assessment (EQA) study was aimed at assessing the proficiency of blood centres and blood product manufacturers in detecting, by nucleic acid amplification technology (NAT), the possible contamination of plasma with hepatitis C virus (HCV), human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and hepatitis B virus (HBV). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three independent panels, one for each virus, were prepared at the Istituto Superiore di Sanità (ISS) by diluting the respective reference preparations. NAT methods used by the EQA participants included polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assays by Roche, transcription-mediated amplification (TMA) assays by Chiron and in-house PCR assays. RESULTS: Forty-three of the 45 participants (95.6%) in the HCV EQA/5 who used a validated method were consistently able to detect a nominal concentration of 100 IU/ml for all six major genotypes. In the case of the HIV EQA/1, all 35 participants detected the samples containing 1000 IU/ml HIV, while five (14.3%) did not identify the samples containing 100 IU/ml HIV. With respect to the HBV EQA/1, all 16 participants correctly identified the positive samples containing either 1000 IU/ml or 100 IU/ml HBV. No false-positive results were observed with any of the three panels. CONCLUSIONS: The HCV EQA/5 showed an improved proficiency of laboratories as compared with the HCV EQA/4. In fact, HCV genotypes 1, 2, 3 and 5 were correctly identified in 100% of the assays and genotypes 4 and 6 in 97.8% of the assays. While most of the participants in the HIV EQA/1 showed a good level of proficiency, an excellent performance was shown by all participants in the HBV EQA/1.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".