Diagnostic accuracy of Abbott Architect Assay as a screening tool for human T‐cell leukaemia virus type‐1 and type‐2 infection in a London teaching hospital with a large solid organ transplant centre
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: In the United Kingdom, organ donors/recipients are screened for evidence of human T-cell leukaemia virus type-1 and type-2 (HTLV-1/2) infections. Since the United Kingdom is a low prevalence country for HTLV infections, a screening assay with high sensitivity and specificity is required. Samples with repeat reactivity on antibody testing are sent to a reference lab for confirmatory serological and molecular testing. In the case of donor screen, this leads to delays in the release of organs and can result in wastage. We aim to assess whether a signal/cut-off (S/CO) ratio higher than the manufacturer's recommendation of 1.0 in the Abbott Architect antibody assay is a reliable measure of HTLV-1/2 infection. METHODS: We conducted a 5 year retrospective analysis of 7245 patients from which 11 766 samples were tested on the Abbott Architect rHTLV I/II assay. Reactive samples (S/CO >1) were referred for confirmatory serological and molecular detection (Western Blot and proviral DNA) at UK Health Security Agency, (formerly PHE, Colindale), the national reference laboratory. Electronic, protected laboratory and hospital patient databases were employed to collate data. RESULTS: A total of 45 patients had initially reactive samples. 42.2% (n = 19/45) had an S/CO ratio > 20, with HTLV infection confirmed in n = 18/19 and indeterminate confirmatory results in n = 1/19. No samples with an S/CO ratio <4 (48.9%, n = 22/45) or 4-20 (8.9%, n = 4/45) had positive confirmatory results on subsequent confirmatory testing. CONCLUSION: Samples with an S/CO >20 likely represent a true HTLV-1/2 infection. Reactive samples with an S/CO <4 were unlikely to confirm for HTLV infections. Interpretation of these ratios can assist clinicians in the assessment of low reactive samples and reiterates the need for faster access to confirmatory testing.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".