Evaluation of the IDI-MRSA Assay for Detection of Methicillin-Resistant <i>Staphylococcus aureus</i> from Nasal and Rectal Specimens Pooled in a Selective Broth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rapid detection of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) by PCR can be performed directly from nasal specimens with the IDI-MRSA assay. To improve the efficiency of screening, we evaluated the performance of the IDI-MRSA assay for the detection of MRSA from pooled and unpooled specimens cultured in a selective broth. Of the 287 specimens evaluated, 71 were culture and PCR positive, 203 were culture and PCR negative, 3 were culture positive and PCR negative, 8 were culture negative and PCR positive, and 2 remained inhibited. A methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus isolate was recovered from five of the eight specimens with false-positive PCR results. Compared to the results of culture, the sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative [corrected] predictive values of the IDI-MRSA assay for detection of MRSA from broth were 96%, 96%, 90%, and 98%, respectively. Following implementation of the IDI-MRSA assay, PCR-positive broths were subcultured for evaluation of assay performance. Of the 298 IDI-MRSA assay-positive broths, the results for 103 could not be confirmed by culture. A methicillin-susceptible S. aureus (MSSA) isolate was recovered from 77 of these 103 broths. Repeat testing by the IDI-MRSA assay directly with the MSSA isolates confirmed the original positive PCR result. The positive predictive value of the IDI-MRSA assay fell from 90% during the evaluation phase to 65% postimplementation. The IDI-MRSA assay performed well for the detection of MRSA from a selective broth compared to the performance of the detection of MRSA from culture. However, because of the burden associated with implementation of infection control precautions, cultures remain essential in confirming positive IDI-MRSA results.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".