Self-Collected Mid-Turbinate Swabs for the Detection of Respiratory Viruses in Adults with Acute Respiratory Illnesses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The gold standard for respiratory virus testing is a nasopharyngeal (NP) swab, which is collected by a healthcare worker. Midturbinate (MT) swabs are an alternative due to their ease of collection and possible self-collection by patients. The objective of this study was to compare the respiratory virus isolation of flocked MT swabs compared to flocked NP swabs. METHODS: Beginning in October 2008, healthy adults aged 18 to 69 years were recruited into a cohort and followed up for symptoms of influenza. They were asked to have NP and MT swabs taken as soon as possible after the onset of a fever or two or more respiratory symptoms with an acute onset. The swabs were tested for viral respiratory infections using Seeplex® RV12 multiplex PCR detection kit. Seventy six pairs of simultaneous NP and MT swabs were collected from 38 symptomatic subjects. Twenty nine (38%) of these pairs were positive by either NP or MT swabs or both. Sixty nine (91%) of the pair results were concordant. Two samples (3%) for hCV OC43/HKU1 and 1 sample (1%) for rhinovirus A/B were positive by NP but negative by MT. One sample each for hCV 229E/NL63, hCV OC43/HKU1, respiratory syncytial virus A, and influenza B were positive by MT but negative by NP. CONCLUSIONS: Flocked MT swabs are sensitive for the diagnosis of multiple respiratory viruses. Given the ease of MT collection and similar results between the two swabs, it is likely that MT swabs should be the preferred method of respiratory cell collection for outpatient studies. In light of this data, larger studies should be performed to ensure that this still holds true and data should also be collected on the patient preference of collection methods.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".