MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2022478789 · doi:10.1111/1556-4029.12171

Qiagen's Investigator™ Quantiplex Kit as a Predictor of <scp>STR</scp> Amplification Success from Low‐Yield <scp>DNA</scp> Samples<sup>,</sup>

2013· article· en· W2022478789 on OpenAlexaff
Jacqueline Tyler Thomas, Rebecca M. Berlin, Jessica M. Barker, Tracey Dawson Cruz

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Forensic Sciences · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMolecular Biology Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsDawson College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBuccal swabMicrosatelliteMolecular biologyBiologyGeneticsAlleleGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Qiagen's Investigator™ Quantiplex kit, a total human DNA quantitation kit, has a 200-base pair internal control, fast cycling time, and scorpion molecules containing a covalently linked primer, probe, fluorophore, and quencher. The Investigator™ Quantiplex kit was evaluated to investigate a value under which complete short tandem repeat (STR) failure was consistently obtained. Buccal swabs were extracted using the Qiagen QIAamp(®) DNA Blood Mini Kit, quantified with the Investigator™ Quantiplex kit using a tested half-volume reaction, amplified with the ABI AmpFlSTR(®) Identifiler kit, separated on the 3100Avant Genetic Analyzer, and data analyzed with GeneMapper(®) ID v.3.2. While undetected samples were unlikely to produce sufficient data for statistical calculations or CODIS upload (2.00 alleles and 0.82 complete loci on average), data may be useful for exclusionary purposes. Thus, the Investigator™ Quantiplex kit may be useful for predicting STR success. These findings are comparable with previously reported data from the Quantifiler™ Human kit.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.005

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations14
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Forensic SciencesSame topicMolecular Biology Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207