Reporting the limits of detection and quantification for environmental DNA assays
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Environmental DNA (eDNA) analysis is increasingly being used to detect the presence and relative abundance of rare species, especially invasive or imperiled aquatic species. The rapid progress in the eDNA field has resulted in numerous studies impacting conservation and management actions. However, standardization of eDNA methods and reporting across the field is yet to be fully established, with one area being the calculation and interpretation of assay limit of detection (LOD) and limit of quantification (LOQ). Aims Here, we propose establishing consistent methods for determining and reporting of LOD and LOQ for single‐species quantitative PCR (qPCR) eDNA studies. Materials & Methods/ Results We utilize datasets from multiple cooperating laboratories to demonstrate both a discrete threshold approach and a curve‐fitting modeling approach for determining LODs and LOQs for eDNA qPCR assays. We also provide details of an R script developed and applied for the modeling method. Discussion/Conclusions Ultimately, standardization of how LOD and LOQ are determined, interpreted, and reported for eDNA assays will allow for more informed interpretation of assay results, more meaningful interlaboratory comparisons of experiments, and enhanced capacity for assessing the relative technical quality and performance of different eDNA qPCR assays.
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.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it