Facilitating the adoption of high‐throughput sequencing technologies as a plant pest diagnostic test in laboratories: A step‐by‐step description
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract High‐throughput sequencing (HTS) is a powerful tool that enables the simultaneous detection and potential identification of any organisms present in a sample. The growing interest in the application of HTS technologies for routine diagnostics in plant health laboratories is triggering the development of guidelines on how to prepare laboratories for performing HTS testing. This paper describes general and technical recommendations to guide laboratories through the complex process of preparing a laboratory for HTS tests within existing quality assurance systems. From nucleic acid extractions to data analysis and interpretation, all of the steps are covered to ensure reliable and reproducible results. These guidelines are relevant for the detection and identification of any plant pest (e.g. arthropods, bacteria, fungi, nematodes, invasive plants or weeds, protozoa, viroids, viruses), and from any type of matrix (e.g. pure microbial culture, plant tissue, soil, water), regardless of the HTS technology (e.g. amplicon sequencing, shotgun sequencing) and of the application (e.g. surveillance programme, phytosanitary certification, quarantine, import control). These guidelines are written in general terms to facilitate the adoption of HTS technologies in plant pest routine diagnostics and enable broader application in all plant health fields, including research. A glossary of relevant terms is provided among the Supplementary Material.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it