Evaluation of Aspergillus PCR Protocols for Testing Serum Specimens
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A panel of human serum samples spiked with various amounts of Aspergillus fumigatus genomic DNA was distributed to 23 centers within the European Aspergillus PCR Initiative to determine analytical performance of PCR. Information regarding specific methodological components and PCR performance was requested. The information provided was made anonymous, and meta-regression analysis was performed to determine any procedural factors that significantly altered PCR performance. Ninety-seven percent of protocols were able to detect a threshold of 10 genomes/ml on at least one occasion, with 83% of protocols reproducibly detecting this concentration. Sensitivity and specificity were 86.1% and 93.6%, respectively. Positive associations between sensitivity and the use of larger sample volumes, an internal control PCR, and PCR targeting the internal transcribed spacer (ITS) region were shown. Negative associations between sensitivity and the use of larger elution volumes (≥100 μl) and PCR targeting the mitochondrial genes were demonstrated. Most Aspergillus PCR protocols used to test serum generate satisfactory analytical performance. Testing serum requires less standardization, and the specific recommendations shown in this article will only improve performance.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it