MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Clinical Evaluation of Two Methods for Genotyping Hepatitis C Virus Based on Analysis of the 5′ Noncoding Region

2003· article· en· W2096390005 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Frederick S. Nolte, Alicia M. Green, Kristin Fiebelkorn, Angela M. Caliendo, Cynthia Sturchio, Aileen Grunwald, Mimi Healy

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Microbiology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHepatitis C virus research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGenotypingNS5BConcordanceGenotypeVirologyBiologyAmpliconHepatitis C virusHepacivirusFlaviviridaeMolecular biologyGeneticsVirusPolymerase chain reactionGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We compared the performance characteristics of a standardized direct sequencing method (TRUGENE HCV 5'NC; Visible Genetics Inc., Toronto, Ontario, Canada) and a reverse hybridization line probe assay (INNO-LiPA HCV II; Bayer Corp., Tarrytown, N.Y.) for genotyping of hepatitis C virus (HCV). Both methods are based on detection of sequence heterogeneity in the 5' noncoding (5'NC) region. Concordance between the genotyping methods was assessed by testing 172 samples representing the six major genotypes. Sequence analysis of the more phylogenetically informative nonstructural 5B (NS5B) region was also done with 148 (86%) samples to confirm the accuracy of and resolve discrepancies between the 5'NC genotyping results. The sensitivities of the methods were assessed by using the 5'NC amplicon from both the qualitative and quantitative AMPLICOR HCV tests (Roche Diagnostics Corp., Indianapolis, Ind.). The ability of the methods to detect mixed-genotype infections was determined with mixtures of two different genotypes at relative concentrations ranging from 1 to 50%. Both 5'NC methods were able to genotype 99.4% of the samples with type agreement for 99.5% and subtype agreement for 68.2% of the samples. No or ambiguous subtype results were found by the line probe assay for 16.5% and by the TRUGENE 5'NC test for 17.1% of the samples. Discrepancies occurred between the line probe assay and NS5B results at the type level for 1.4% of the samples and at the subtype level for 14.2% of the samples. Discrepancies also occurred between the TRUGENE 5'NC and NS5B results at the type level for 2% of the samples and at the subtype level for 8.1% of the samples. We also found two distinct strains of HCV classified as type 2 by analysis of the 5'NC region that were type 1 by analysis of the NS5B region. The sensitivities of the two 5'NC genotyping methods were comparable and dependent on the amplification test used ( approximately 10(3) IU/ml with the qualitative HCV RNA tests and approximately 10(5) IU/ml with the quantitative HCV RNA tests). Genotype mixtures were successfully identified at a relative concentration of 5% by the line probe assay and 10% by the TRUGENE 5'NC test. In conclusion, the performance characteristics of the 5'NC methods were similar and both methods produced accurate results at the genotype level but neither method should be used for subtyping.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.038
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.077

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.038
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.324
GPT teacher head0.597
Teacher spread0.274 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations88
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical MicrobiologySame topicHepatitis C virus researchFrench-language works237,207