MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3100938527 · doi:10.3791/61949

Nasal Brushing Sampling and Processing using Digital High Speed Ciliary Videomicroscopy – Adaptation for the COVID-19 Pandemic

2020· article· en· W3100938527 on OpenAlexaff
Noémie Bricmont, Lionel Benchimol, Anne‐Lise Poirrier, Christine Grignet, Claire Seaton, Mark Chilvers, Marie-Christine Seghaye, Renaud Louis, Philippe Lefèbvre, Céline Kempeneers

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Visualized Experiments · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCystic Fibrosis Research Advances
Canadian institutionsBC Children's HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrimary ciliary dyskinesiaMedicinePandemicPathologyCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Infectious disease (medical specialty)LungDiseaseInternal medicineBronchiectasis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Primary Ciliary Dyskinesia (PCD) is a genetic motile ciliopathy, leading to significant otosinopulmonary disease. PCD diagnosis is often missed or delayed due to challenges with different diagnostic modalities. Ciliary videomicroscopy, using Digital High-Speed Videomicroscopy (DHSV), one of the diagnostic tools for PCD, is considered the optimal method to perform ciliary functional analysis (CFA), comprising of ciliary beat frequency (CBF) and beat pattern (CBP) analysis. However, DHSV lacks standardized, published operating procedure for processing and analyzing samples. It also uses living respiratory epithelium, a significant infection control issue during the COVID-19 pandemic. To continue providing a diagnostic service during this health crisis, the ciliary videomicroscopy protocol has been adapted to include adequate infection control measures. Here, we describe a revised protocol for sampling and laboratory processing of ciliated respiratory samples, highlighting adaptations made to comply with COVID-19 infection control measures. Representative results of CFA from nasal brushing samples obtained from 16 healthy subjects, processed and analyzed according to this protocol, are described. We also illustrate the importance of obtaining and processing optimal quality epithelial ciliated strips, as samples not meeting quality selection criteria do now allow for CFA, potentially decreasing the diagnostic reliability and the efficiency of this technique.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.238
GPT teacher head0.529
Teacher spread0.290 · 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

Citations7
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Visualized ExperimentsSame topicCystic Fibrosis Research AdvancesFrench-language works237,207