MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1989844967 · doi:10.1128/jcm.00370-08

Multicenter Comparison of PCR Assays for Detection of Human Herpesvirus 6 DNA in Serum

2008· article· en· W1989844967 on OpenAlexaff
Louis Flamand, Annie Gravel, David Boutolleau, Roberto Álvarez‐Lafuente, Steve Jacobson, Mauro Malnati, Debra Kohn, Yi‐Wei Tang, Tetsushi Yoshikawa, Dharam V. Ablashi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Microbiology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCytomegalovirus and herpesvirus research
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersHHV-6 Foundation
KeywordsTaqManHuman herpesvirus 6BiologyVirologyReal-time polymerase chain reactionVirusComputational biologyHerpesviridaeGeneticsViral diseaseGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Human herpesvirus 6 (HHV-6) is a ubiquitous virus with which infections have been associated with pathologies ranging from delayed bone marrow engraftment to a variety of neurological diseases. The lack of a standardized assay that can be used to detect and estimate HHV-6 DNA contents in various clinical specimens can lead and has led to discordant results among investigators and on the potential association of HHV-6 to diseases. To identify the most reliable and sensitive assays, an identical set of 11 coded serum samples spiked with various quantities of the HHV-6A variant (range, 4 to 400,000 genome copies/ml) was sent to eight independent laboratories around the world. Each laboratory was asked to estimate the HHV-6 DNA content by use of its own protocols and assays. Among the various assays, three TaqMan-based real-time PCR assays yielded quantities that were closest to the quantity of HHV-6 that had been spiked. To provide better homogeneity between the results from the different laboratories working on HHV-6, we propose that investigators interested in quantifying HHV-6 in clinical samples adopt one of these assays.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.212
Threshold uncertainty score0.349

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.149
GPT teacher head0.461
Teacher spread0.312 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations82
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical MicrobiologySame topicCytomegalovirus and herpesvirus researchFrench-language works237,207