Validation of a molecular assay to detect SARS-CoV-2 in saliva
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To validate a reverse transcriptase-quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) assay to detect SARS-CoV-2 in saliva in two independent Aotearoa New Zealand laboratories. METHODS: An RT-qPCR assay developed at University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, USA, was validated in two New Zealand laboratories. Analytical measures, such as limit of detection (LOD) and cross-reactivity, were performed. One hundred and forty-seven saliva samples, each paired with a contemporaneously collected nasal swab, mainly of nasopharyngeal origin, were received. Positive (N=33) and negative (N=114) samples were tested blindly in each laboratory. Diagnostic sensitivity and specificity were then calculated. RESULTS: The LOD was <0.75 copy per µL and no cross-reactivity with MERS-CoV was detected. There was complete concordance between laboratories for all saliva samples with the quantification cycle values for all three genes in close agreement. Saliva had 98.7% concordance with paired nasal samples: and a sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of 97.0%, 99.1% and 99.1%, respectively. CONCLUSION: This saliva RT-qPCR assay produces reproducible results with a low LOD. High sensitivity and specificity make it a reliable option for SARS-CoV-2 testing, including for asymptomatic people requiring regular screening.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".