Comparison of an Industry-Derived LCx <i>Chlamydia pneumoniae</i> PCR Research Kit to In-House Assays Performed in Five Laboratories
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In a multicenter comparison of PCR assays utilizing 120 quantitated samples of 16 Chlamydia pneumoniae isolates, an LCx research-use-only (RUO) PCR developed by Abbott Laboratories demonstrated 100% sensitivity on 48 samples with >1 copy of DNA per microl of specimen. The sensitivities of five in-house PCR assays ranged from 54 to 94% for the same samples. All six assays showed decreased sensitivities as the DNA copy numbers of the samples decreased. Overall, sensitivities ranged from 68% for the LCx PCR assay to 29% for one of the in-house tests. The LCx RUO PCR and three of the five in-house PCR tests reported no false positives with the 24 negative samples. Increasing the number of replicates tested increased the sensitivities of all of the assays, including the LCx PCR. The LCx RUO assay showed high reproducibility for a single technologist and between technologists, with a kappa agreement of 0.77. The within-center agreements of the five in-house PCR tests varied from 0.19 to 0.74 on two challenges of 60 specimens 1 month apart. The LCx C. pneumoniae RUO PCR shows excellent potential for use in clinical studies, which could enable standardization of results in the field.
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 | 0.016 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".