Comparison of the Luminex xTAG Respiratory Viral Panel with xTAG Respiratory Viral Panel Fast for Diagnosis of Respiratory Virus Infections
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nucleic acid tests are sensitive and specific and provide a rapid diagnosis, making them invaluable for patient and outbreak management. Multiplex PCR assays have additional advantages in providing an economical and comprehensive panel for many common respiratory viruses. Previous reports have shown the utility of the xTAG respiratory viral panel (RVP) assay manufactured by Luminex Molecular Diagnostics for this purpose. A newer generation of this kit, released in Canada in early 2010, is designed to simplify the procedure and reduce the turnaround time by about 24 h. The assay methodology and targets included in this version of the kit are different; consequently, the objective of this study was to compare the detection of a panel of respiratory viral targets using the older Luminex xTAG RVP (RVP Classic) assay with that using the newer xTAG RVP Fast assay. This study included 334 respiratory specimens that had been characterized for a variety of respiratory viral targets; all samples were tested by both versions of the RVP assay in parallel. Overall, the RVP Classic assay was more sensitive than the RVP Fast assay (88.6% and 77.5% sensitivities, respectively) for all the viral targets combined. Targets not detected by the RVP Fast assay included primarily influenza B virus, parainfluenza virus type 2, and human coronavirus 229E. A small number of samples positive for influenza A virus, respiratory syncytial virus B, human metapneumovirus, and parainfluenza virus type 1 were not detected by the RVP Classic assay and in general had low viral loads.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".