MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4313544913 · doi:10.1128/spectrum.03789-22

Validation and Establishment of the SARS-CoV-2 Lentivirus Surrogate Neutralization Assay as a Prescreening Tool for the Plaque Reduction Neutralization Test

2023· article· en· W4313544913 on OpenAlexaffabout
John Merluza, Johnny Ung, Kai Makowski, Alyssia Robinson, Kathy Manguiat, Nicole Mueller, Jonathan Audet, James E. Strong, Heidi Wood, Alexander Bello

Bibliographic record

VenueMicrobiology Spectrum · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaPublic Health Agency of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeutralizationSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)VirologyCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Lentivirus2019-20 coronavirus outbreakImmunizationMedicineHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)ImmunologyVirusViral diseaseInternal medicineOutbreakAntibody

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Neutralization studies play an important role in providing guidance and justification for vaccine administration and helping prevent the spread of diseases. The neutralization data generated in our laboratory have been included in the decision-making process of the National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI) in Canada. During the coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the plaque reduction neutralization test (PRNT) has been the gold standard for determining neutralization of SARS-CoV-2. We validated a SARS-CoV-2 lentivirus surrogate neutralization assay (SCLSNA) as an alternative method to help support the PRNT. The advantages of using the SCLSNA is that it can process more samples, is less tedious to perform, and can be used in laboratories with a lower biosafety level. The use of the SCLSNA can further expand our capabilities to help fulfill the requirements for NACI and other important collaborations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.432

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.285 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations10
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMicrobiology SpectrumSame topicSARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 ResearchFrench-language works237,207