Comparison of LightCycler-Based PCR, COBAS Amplicor CMV Monitor, and pp65 Antigenemia Assays for Quantitative Measurement of Cytomegalovirus Viral Load in Peripheral Blood Specimens from Patients after Solid Organ Transplantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In order to evaluate the LightCycler-based PCR (LC-PCR) as a diagnostic assay technique, a classical pp65 antigenemia assay and the commercially available COBAS Amplicor CMV Monitor (CACM) assay were compared to the LC-PCR assay for the detection and quantitation of cytomegalovirus (CMV) load in 404 parallel specimens of peripheral blood from 66 patients after solid organ transplantation. A good correlation existed among these three assays (r congruent with 0.6, P < 0.0001). The LC-PCR assay was the most sensitive (54% of specimens positive) compared to the CACM (48.6%) and the pp65 antigenemia (26%) assays. The LC-PCR assay detected all samples found positive by using both the CMV pp65 antigenemia assay and the CACM assay. The LC-PCR also had the widest dynamic range (from 250 to 10(7) DNA copies/ml of plasma). No cross-reactions were found among CMV and Epstein-Barr virus, varicella-zoster virus, or herpes simplex virus in the LC-PCR by using amplification with specifically designed primer pairs. Precision, expressed as the coefficient of variation, was <3% with standard DNA from cell cultures and between 6.55 and 14.1% with clinical specimens in repeat LC-PCR runs. One run of the LC-PCR took half of the time required for the semiautomated CACM procedure. Because of its sensitivity, specificity, cost-effectiveness, and simplicity, the LC-PCR assay could replace the pp65 antigenemia and the CACM assays as the preferred technique for the surveillance, diagnosis, and monitoring of response of CMV diseases in high-risk populations.
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 | 0.008 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".