MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2113251109 · doi:10.1128/jcm.00498-08

Evaluation of a New Hepatitis B Virus Surface Antigen Rapid Test with Improved Sensitivity

2008· article· en· W2113251109 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Yu-Huei Lin, Yi Wang, André Loua, Gwo-Jen Day, Yan Qiu, Cesar Nadala, Jean‐Pierre Allain, Helen Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Microbiology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHepatitis B Virus Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institutes of HealthUniversity of CambridgeNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteUniversity of Manitoba
KeywordsHBsAgSeroconversionMedicineImmunoassayTiterVirologyHepatitis B virusGold standard (test)ImmunologyVirusInternal medicineAntibody

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A new rapid immunochromatographic assay based on the signal amplification system (SAS) has been developed by Diagnostics for the Real World (Europe) Ltd. for the detection of hepatitis B virus surface antigen (HBsAg) in plasma or serum specimens. The SAS format features enhanced sensitivity as a result of an increased binding valence of the detector molecules. We have now evaluated the performance of the new HBsAg rapid test (DRW-HBsAg) in comparison with a well-established commercial rapid test (Determine HBsAg; previously from Abbott Laboratories; now from Inverness Medical Innovations) and with a CE-marked enzyme immunoassay (EIA) (Hepanostika HBsAg Ultra; BioMérieux) as the gold standard. Testing of serially diluted in-house HBsAg-positive samples, the World Health Organization standard, and sensitivity and reference panels yielded an analytical sensitivity for the DRW test of 0.2 to 0.8 IU/ml across HBsAg serotypes. Evaluation with eight commercially available seroconversion panels showed that the DRW-HBsAg test detected HBsAg an average of 6.1 days (range, 3 to 8 days) earlier than the Determine assay (P = 0.0078). Test sensitivity was also examined with two low-titer HBsAg EIA-positive panels in Beijing, China. Whereas 100% of these samples were detected by the DRW-HBsAg test, only 15.0% (P < 0.0001) and 87.3% (P < 0.0001), respectively, were detected by the Determine HBsAg test. The performance of the DRW-HBsAg test was further evaluated with samples determined to be HBsAg positive or negative by the EIA in Conakry, Guinea, and Beijing, China. No significant difference in sensitivity between the DRW and Determine tests was apparent with the HBsAg EIA-reactive samples from Guinea (96.7% versus 94.4%, respectively) or China (99.46 versus 98.92%, respectively). The specificity of the Determine HBsAg test was slightly higher than that of DRW-HBsAg test (100 versus 99.2%, respectively) with samples from EIA-negative blood donors in China. In conclusion, the new DRW HBsAg rapid test is more sensitive than the Determine HBsAg test and is suitable for diagnostic and blood screening in resource-limited settings.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.265
Threshold uncertainty score0.887

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.111
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.277 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations62
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical MicrobiologySame topicHepatitis B Virus StudiesFrench-language works237,207