Reassessment of hepatitis B virus window periods for two transcription‐mediated amplification assays using screening data of South African blood donors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Transcription-mediated amplification assays for HBV DNA detection have transitioned from the Ultrio to the Ultrio Plus assay, which features increased analytic sensitivity due to inclusion of a target enhancer reagent. The impact on HBV detection for different categories of HBV infection has not been fully evaluated. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Hepatitis B virus (HBV) DNA and hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) detection rates as well as viral load (VL) distributions in HBV nucleic acid test (NAT)-yield samples were compared during 1 year of screening of South African blood donors with the Ultrio assay and the subsequent year by the Ultrio Plus version. HBV-DNA concentration at the HBsAg seroconversion point was established by regression analysis using a set of antibody to hepatitis B core antigen-negative acute viremic samples. RESULTS: Ultrio Plus detected twofold more window-period (WP) NAT yield donations and 1.7-fold more occult HBV infections than Ultrio. The VL distribution data indicated that Ultrio not only missed samples of less than 100 copies/mL, but also a substantial number higher than this level. The VL at the HBsAg seroconversion point was estimated at 916 copies/mL, whereas the VL at the NAT-conversion points was calculated at 63 and 4.1 copies/mL for Ultrio and Ultrio Plus. This reduced the infectious WP (compared to HBsAg testing) by 10.3 and 20.4 days, respectively. CONCLUSION: The higher-than-expected increase in HBV-NAT yields after introduction of the Ultrio Plus assay is likely attributable to variable sensitivity of the former Ultrio assay for different HBV samples. Therefore, previously published HBV WP reduction and residual risk estimates based on analytical sensitivity of the Ultrio assay need to be revised.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".