Detection of Respiratory Viruses by Molecular Methods
Why is this work in the frame?
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Full frame distilled prediction
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.
- Candidate categories
- Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
- Consensus categories
- Research integrity
- Domain
- Candidate signal: noneConsensus signal: none
- Study design
- Candidate signal: Not applicableConsensus signal: none
- Genre
- Candidate signal: ReviewConsensus signal: Review
- Teacher disagreement score
- 0.974
- Threshold uncertainty score
- 1.000
- Validation status
machine_predicted_unvalidated·codex-gemma-dda1882f352a
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
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.
- Teacher spread
- 0.200 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
- Validation status
score_only:v0-immature-baseline· verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it
Abstract
SUMMARY: Clinical laboratories historically diagnose seven or eight respiratory virus infections using a combination of techniques including enzyme immunoassay, direct fluorescent antibody staining, cell culture, and nucleic acid amplification tests. With the discovery of six new respiratory viruses since 2000, laboratories are faced with the challenge of detecting up to 19 different viruses that cause acute respiratory disease of both the upper and lower respiratory tracts. The application of nucleic acid amplification technology, particularly multiplex PCR coupled with fluidic or fixed microarrays, provides an important new approach for the detection of multiple respiratory viruses in a single test. These multiplex amplification tests provide a sensitive and comprehensive approach for the diagnosis of respiratory tract infections in individual hospitalized patients and the identification of the etiological agent in outbreaks of respiratory tract infection in the community. This review describes the molecular methods used to detect respiratory viruses and discusses the contribution that molecular testing, especially multiplex PCR, has made to our ability to detect respiratory viruses and to increase our understanding of the roles of various viral agents in acute respiratory disease.
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.
The record
- Venue
- Clinical Microbiology Reviews
- Topic
- Respiratory viral infections research
- Field
- Medicine
- Canadian institutions
- McMaster UniversitySt. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton
- Funders
- not available
- Keywords
- Multiplex polymerase chain reactionMultiplexVirologyRespiratory tract infectionsRespiratory systemRespiratory tractBiologyMolecular diagnosticsVirusRespiratory diseaseNucleic acidImmunologyMedicinePolymerase chain reactionBioinformaticsInternal medicineLungGene
- Has abstract in OpenAlex
- yes