MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2898145794 · doi:10.1101/455568

A novel real-time PCR assay panel for detection of common respiratory pathogens in a convenient, strip-tube array format

2018· preprint· en· W2898145794 on OpenAlexaff
Mohammad R. Hasan, Hassan Al Mana, Virginia A. Young, Patrick Tang, Eva Thomas, Rusung Tan, Peter Tilley

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2018
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory viral infections research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaChildren's & Women's Health Centre of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMultiplexMultiplex polymerase chain reactionPrimer (cosmetics)Molecular diagnosticsTube (container)ChromatographyNucleic acidPipettePolymerase chain reactionBiologyChemistryMaterials scienceBioinformaticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Commercial multiplex assays, built on different chemistries and platforms are widely available for simultaneous detection of pathogens that cause respiratory infections. However, these tests are often difficult to implement in a resource limited setting because of high cost. In this study, we developed and validated a method for simultaneous testing of common respiratory pathogens (Respanel) by real-time PCR in a convenient, strip-tube array format. Primers and probes for sixteen PCR assays were selected from the literature or newly designed. Following optimization of individual PCR assays, strip-tube arrays were prepared by dispensing primer-probe mixes (PPM) into two sets of 8-tube strips. Nucleic acid extracts from specimens were mixed with PCR master mix, and dispensed column-wise into 2X8-wells of a 96-well plate. PPMs from strip-tubes were then added to the wells using a multichannel pipette for real-time PCR. Individual PCR assays were optimized using previously known specimens (n=397) with 91%-100% concordance with culture, DFA or PCR results. Respanel was then tested in a routine manner at two different sites using specimens (n=147) previously tested by Qiagen Resplex I&II or Fast-Track Diagnostics Respiratory Pathogens 21 assays. The sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of Respanel were 94%, 95% and 95%, respectively, against Resplex and 88%, 100% and 99%, respectively, against FTDRP21. Respanel detected 48% more pathogens ( p <0.05) than Resplex but the rate of pathogen detection was not significantly different from FTDRP21. Respanel is a convenient and inexpensive assay that is more sensitive than Resplex and comparable to FTDRP21 for the detection of common respiratory pathogens.

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)0.002
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.059
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)→Same topicRespiratory viral infections research→French-language works237,207→