MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4224949081 · doi:10.1111/tme.12866

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

2022· article· en· W4224949081 on OpenAlexaff
Nathaniel Lee, Jamie Murphy, Rasheed Al‐Khudairi, Ann Sturdy, Tabitha Mahungu, Tanzina Haque, Paul Griffiths, Jennifer Tosswill, Dianne Irish

Bibliographic record

VenueTransfusion Medicine · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicT-cell and Retrovirus Studies
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Infection and Immunity
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSerologyMedicineAntibodyVirologyImmunologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations6
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransfusion MedicineSame topicT-cell and Retrovirus StudiesFrench-language works237,207