Recommendations for sample pooling on the Cepheid GeneXpert <sup>®</sup> system using the Cepheid Xpert <sup>®</sup> Xpress SARS-CoV-2 assay
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) pandemic, caused by SARS-CoV-2, has resulted in a global testing supply shortage. In response, pooled testing has emerged as a promising strategy that can immediately increase testing capacity. Here, we provide support for the adoption of sample pooling with the point-of-care Cepheid Xpert ® Xpress SARS-CoV-2 molecular assay. Corroborating previous findings, the Xpert ® Xpress SARS-CoV-2 assay limit of detection was comparable to central laboratory reverse-transcription quantitative PCR tests with observed SARS-CoV-2 detection below 100 copies/mL. The Xpert ® Xpress assay detected SARS-CoV-2 after samples with minimum viral loads of 461 copies/mL were diluted into six sample pools. Based on these data, we recommend the adoption of pooled testing with the Xpert ® Xpress SARS-CoV-2 assay where warranted by population public health needs. The suggested number of samples per pool, or pooling depth, is unique for each point-of-care test site and should be determined by assessing positive test rates. To statistically determine appropriate pooling depth, we have calculated the pooling efficiency for numerous combinations of pool sizes and test rates. This information is included as a supplemental dataset that we encourage public health authorities to use as a guide to make recommendations that will maximize testing capacity and resource conservation.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".