Aspergillus PCR: One Step Closer to Standardization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PCR has been used as an aid in the diagnosis of invasive aspergillosis for almost 2 decades. A lack of standardization has limited both its acceptance as a diagnostic tool and multicenter clinical evaluations, preventing its inclusion in disease-defining criteria. In 2006, the European Aspergillus PCR Initiative was formed. The aim of the initiative was to provide optimal standardized protocols for the widespread clinical evaluation of the Aspergillus PCR to determine its diagnostic role and allow inclusion in disease diagnosis criteria. Quality control panels were developed and circulated to centers for evaluation of the existing methodology before recommendations based on the initial results were proposed for further panels. The centers were anonymously classified as "compliant" or "noncompliant," according to whether they had followed the proposed recommendations before the performance parameters were determined and meta-regression analysis was performed. Most PCR amplification systems provided similar detection thresholds, although positivity was a function of the fungal burden. When PCR amplification was combined with DNA extraction, 50% of the centers failed to achieve the same level of detection. Meta-regression analysis showed positive correlations between sensitivity and extraction protocols incorporating the proposed recommendations and the use of bead beating, white cell lysis buffer, and an internal control PCR. The use of elution volumes above 100 microl showed a negative correlation with sensitivity. The efficiency of the Aspergillus PCR is limited by the extraction procedure and not by PCR amplification. For PCR testing of whole blood, it is essential that large blood volumes (>or=3 ml) be efficiently lysed before bead beating to disrupt the fungal cell and performance of an internal control PCR to exclude false negativity. DNA should be eluted in volumes of <100 microl.
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 | 0.467 | 0.493 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.027 | 0.029 |
| Open science | 0.010 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.037 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
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".