Rectal swab screening assays of public health importance in molecular diagnostics: Sample adequacy control
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rectal swabs are routinely used by public health authorities to screen for multi-drug resistant enteric bacteria including vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE) and carbapenem-resistant enterobacteriaceae (CRE). Screening sensitivity can be influenced by the quality of the swabbing, whether performed by the patient (self-swabbing) or a healthcare practitioner. One common exclusion criterion for rectal swabs is absence of "visible soiling" from fecal matter. In our institution, this criterion excludes almost 10% of rectal swabs received in the microbiology laboratory. Furthermore, over 30% of patients in whom rectal swabs are cancelled will not be re-screened within the next 48h, resulting in delays in removing infection prevention measures. We describe two quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR)-based assays, human RNAse P and eubacterial 16S rDNA, which might serve as suitable controls for sampling adequacy. However, lower amounts of amplifiable human DNA make the 16s rDNA assay a better candidate for sample adequacy control.
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 | 0.030 | 0.055 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".