MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2170619342 · doi:10.4269/ajtmh.2010.10-0117

Early Diagnosis of Dengue Infection Using a Commercial Dengue Duo Rapid Test Kit for the Detection of NS1, IGM, and IGG

2010· article· en· W2170619342 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Seok Mui Wang, Shamala Devi Sekaran

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMosquito-borne diseases and control
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversiti MalayaMahidol UniversityPublic Health AgencyPublic Health Agency of Canada
KeywordsDengue feverSerologyDengue virusVirologyImmunoglobulin MAntibodyHemagglutination assayMedicineAntigenPolymerase chain reactionImmunologyBiologyImmunoglobulin GTiterGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A commercial Dengue Duo rapid test kit was evaluated for early dengue diagnosis by detection of dengue virus NS1 antigen and immunoglobulin M (IgM)/IgG antibodies. A total of 420 patient serum samples were subjected to real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), in-house IgM capture enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), hemagglutination inhibition assay, and the SD Dengue Duo rapid test. Of the 320 dengue acute and convalescent sera, dengue infection was detected by either serology or RT-PCR in 300 samples (93.75%), as compared with 289 samples (90.31%) in the combined SD Duo NS1/IgM. The NS1 detection rate is inversely proportional, whereas the IgM detection rate is directly proportional to the presence of IgG antibodies. The sensitivity and specificity in diagnosing acute dengue infection in the SD Duo NS1/IgM were 88.65% and 98.75%, respectively. The assay is sensitive and highly specific. Detection of both NS1 and IgM by SD Duo gave comparable detection rate by either serology or RT-PCR.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.274 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations179
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Tropical Medicine and HygieneSame topicMosquito-borne diseases and controlFrench-language works237,207