Clinical evaluation of the GeneXpert <sup>®</sup> Xpert <sup>®</sup> Xpress SARS-CoV-2/Flu/RSV PLUS combination test
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Xpress SARS-CoV-2/Flu/RSV PLUS combination test (PLUS assay) received Health Canada approval in January 2022. The PLUS assay is similar to the SARS-CoV-2/Flu/RSV combination test, with modifications to improve assay robustness against circulating and emerging variants. The performance characteristics of the PLUS assay were assessed at the Lakeridge Health Oshawa Hospital Centre and the National Microbiology Laboratory of Canada. The PLUS assay was directly compared to the SARS-CoV-2/Flu/RSV combination test using SARS-CoV-2 culture from five variants and remnant clinical specimens collected across the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. This included 50 clinical specimens negative for all pathogens, 110 clinical specimens positive for SARS-CoV-2, influenza A, influenza B, RSVA, and(or) RSVB and an additional 11 mixed samples to screen for target interactions. The PLUS assay showed a high % agreement with the widely used SARS-CoV-2/Flu/RSV combination test. Based on these findings, the PLUS assay and the Xpert SARS-CoV-2/Flu/RSV combination test results are largely consistent with no observed difference in sensitivity, specificity, or time to result when challenged with various SARS-CoV-2 variants. The reported cycle threshold (Ct) values provided by the new PLUS assay were also unchanged, with the exception of a possible 1-2 decrease reported in Ct for RSVA across a limited sample size.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".