Comparison of the Luminex xTAG Respiratory Viral Panel Fast v2 Assay With Anyplex II RV16 Detection Kit and AdvanSure RV Real-Time RT-PCR Assay for the Detection of Respiratory Viruses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The accurate and rapid identification of the causative viruses is important for the timely diagnosis and management of respiratory infections. Multiplex molecular diagnostic techniques have been widely adopted to detect respiratory viruses. We compared the results of a newly upgraded, multiplex, molecular bead-based respiratory viral panel (RVP) assay with the results of Anyplex II RV16 detection kit and AdvanSure RV real-time RT-PCR assay. METHODS: We tested 254 respiratory specimens and cultured viral strains using the Luminex xTAG RVP Fast v2 assay (Luminex Molecular Diagnostics, Canada) and Anyplex II RV16 detection kit and compared the results. Specimens showing discordant results between the two assays were tested with a AdvanSure RV real-time RT-PCR assay. RESULTS: Of the 254 respiratory specimens, there was total agreement in the results between the xTAG RVP Fast v2 assay and the other real-time PCR assay in 94.1-100% of the specimens. The agreement levels were relatively low (94.1-97.6%) for specimens of adenovirus, coronavirus NL63, and parainfluenza type 3. In comparison to the other assay, the xTAG RVP Fast v2 assay detected a higher number of parainfluenza type 3 (4 cases) and metapneumovirus (9 cases). CONCLUSIONS: The xTAG RVP Fast v2 assay showed comparable capabilities compared with the other assays; it will be useful for identifying respiratory viral infections in patients with respiratory symptoms. Clinicians should be aware of the characteristics of the assays they use, since different assays show different detectability for each virus.
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 | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".