Commutability of the First World Health Organization International Standard for Human Cytomegalovirus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Quantitative detection of cytomegalovirus (CMV) DNA has become a standard part of care for many groups of immunocompromised patients; recent development of the first WHO international standard for human CMV DNA has raised hopes of reducing interlaboratory variability of results. Commutability of reference material has been shown to be necessary if such material is to reduce variability among laboratories. Here we evaluated the commutability of the WHO standard using 10 different real-time quantitative CMV PCR assays run by eight different laboratories. Test panels, including aliquots of 50 patient samples (40 positive samples and 10 negative samples) and lyophilized CMV standard, were run, with each testing center using its own quantitative calibrators, reagents, and nucleic acid extraction methods. Commutability was assessed both on a pairwise basis and over the entire group of assays, using linear regression and correspondence analyses. Commutability of the WHO material differed among the tests that were evaluated, and these differences appeared to vary depending on the method of statistical analysis used and the cohort of assays included in the analysis. Depending on the methodology used, the WHO material showed poor or absent commutability with up to 50% of assays. Determination of commutability may require a multifaceted approach; the lack of commutability seen when using the WHO standard with several of the assays here suggests that further work is needed to bring us toward true consensus.
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 | 0.047 | 0.068 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".