Concurrent Analysis of Nose and Groin Swab Specimens by the IDI-MRSA PCR Assay Is Comparable to Analysis by Individual-Specimen PCR and Routine Culture Assays for Detection of Colonization by Methicillin-Resistant <i>Staphylococcus aureus</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The IDI-MRSA assay (Infectio Diagnostic, Inc., Sainte-Foy, Quebec, Canada) with the Smart Cycler II rapid DNA amplification system (Cepheid, Sunnyvale, CA) appears to be sensitive and specific for the rapid detection of nasal colonization by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). We assessed the sensitivity and specificity of this assay under conditions in which both the nose and cutaneous groin specimens were analyzed together and compared the accuracy of this PCR approach to that when these specimens were tested separately and by culture assays in an inpatient population with known high rates (12 to 15%) of MRSA colonization. Of 211 patients screened, 192 had results assessable by all three methods (agar-broth culture, separate nose and groin IDI-MRSA assay, and combined nose-groin IDI-MRSA assay), with MRSA carriage noted in 31/192 (16.1%), 41/192 (21.4%), and 36/192 (18.8%) patients by each method, respectively. Compared to agar culture results, the sensitivity and specificity of the combined nose-groin IDI-MRSA assay were 88.0% and 91.6%, respectively, whereas when each specimen was processed separately, the sensitivities were 90.0% (nose) and 83.3% (groin) and the specificities were 91.7% (nose) and 90.2% (groin). IDI-MRSA assay of a combined nose-groin specimen appears to have an accuracy similar to that of the current recommended PCR protocol, providing results in a clinically useful time frame, and may represent a more cost-effective approach to using this assay for screening for MRSA colonization.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".