Utilization of herpes simplex PCR assays for cerebrospinal fluid in a pediatric health care setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An assessment was made of the utilization and impact of a diagnostic polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay for the diagnosis of herpes simplex viruses (HSV) 1 and 2 in cerebrospinal fluid of children who attended a Canadian pediatric referral centre. One hundred and three assays were performed on specimens from 103 patients during the period August 1997 to September 1998. Patient ages ranged from newborn to 16 years. Indications for HSV PCR included seizures with or without fever (56.3%), aseptic meningitis (16.5%), and encephalopathy with or without fever (10.7%). Only 2 of 103 (1.9%) assays were positive, including one each for HSV1 and HSV2. Control specimens that were seeded with virus indicated inhibition for 24.3, 8.8, and 6.8% of assays for HSV1, HSV2, and both HSV1 and HSV2, respectively. The mean turn-around time for HSV PCR was 2.5 days, and 90.3% were completed in less than 5 days. Acyclovir was administered to 78.6% of the patients overall; the results of the HSV PCR impacted on the treatment courses for 36 individuals. Nevertheless, 16.5% of patients continued to receive extended courses of antiviral therapy despite negative HSV PCR assays. Although it is desirable to decrease the frequency of PCR inhibitions and to further decrease the interval to assay completion, HSV PCR does have a significant impact on antiviral use in this setting.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".