International Proficiency Study of a Consensus L1 PCR Assay for the Detection and Typing of Human Papillomavirus DNA: Evaluation of Accuracy and Intralaboratory and Interlaboratory Agreement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The PGMY L1 consensus primer pair combined with the line blot assay allows the detection of 27 genital human papillomavirus (HPV) genotypes. We conducted an intralaboratory and interlaboratory agreement study to assess the accuracy and reproducibility of PCR for HPV DNA detection and typing using the PGMY primers and typing amplicons with the line blot (PGMY-LB) assay. A test panel of 109 samples consisting of 29 HPV-negative (10 buffer controls and 19 genital samples) and 80 HPV-positive samples (60 genital samples and 20 controls with small or large amounts of HPV DNA plasmids) were tested blindly in triplicate by three laboratories. Intralaboratory agreement ranged from 86 to 98% for HPV DNA detection. PGMY-LB assay results for samples with a low copy number of HPV DNA were less reproducible. The rate of intralaboratory agreement excluding negative results for HPV typing ranged from 78 to 96%. Interlaboratory reliability for HPV DNA positivity and HPV typing was very good, with levels of agreement of >95% and kappa values of >0.87. Again, low-copy-number samples were more prone to generating discrepant results. The accuracy varied from 91 to 100% for HPV DNA positivity and from 90 to 100% for HPV typing. HPV testing can thus be accomplished reliably with PCR by using a standardized written protocol and quality-controlled reagents. The use of validated HPV DNA detection and typing assays demonstrating excellent interlaboratory agreement will allow investigators to better compare results between epidemiological studies.
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 | 0.075 | 0.084 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".