Using cerebrospinal fluid for the diagnosis of tuberculous meningitis with GeneXpert
Bibliographic record
Abstract
concentration.However, four replicate samples using the same protocol also demonstrated a 1.7 cycle mean difference, similar to the up to 1.9 cycle difference seen across protocols.The similarity in cycle differences suggests that differences in cycle threshold values may be due to intra-assay variation and not related to the sample processing protocol used.These results show that centrifugation may not be necessary for testing CSF.Additionally, as CSF samples tend to be paucibacillary compared to sputum, less sample reagent may be needed to produce an adequate tuberculocidal effect.Further research, ideally on paired samples from TB meningitis patients, will help elucidate the most sensitive and safest method to test CSF with the Xpert MTB/RIF test, particularly in settings that may not have access to centrifugation. @ERSpublicationsCerebrospinal fluid testing with Xpert MTB/RIF may not require complex sample processing protocols http://ow.ly/xkGjg
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
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".