MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390035530 · doi:10.3390/ijns10010001

Droplet Digital PCR (ddPCR) Does Not Enhance the Sensitivity of Detection of Cytomegalovirus (CMV) DNA in Newborn Dried Blood Spots Evaluated in the Context of Newborn Congenital CMV (cCMV) Screening

2023· article· en· W4390035530 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Nelmary Hernandez-Alvarado, Craig J. Bierle, Mark R. Schleiss

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Neonatal Screening · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCytomegalovirus and herpesvirus research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of MinnesotaCenters for Disease Control and PreventionMinnesota Department of Health
KeywordsDigital polymerase chain reactionMultiplexDried bloodCytomegalovirusMedicineContext (archaeology)Real-time polymerase chain reactionPrimer (cosmetics)Newborn screeningMultiplex polymerase chain reactionVirologyDried blood spotPolymerase chain reactionPediatricsBiologyBioinformaticsGeneticsVirusChemistryHerpesviridaeChromatographyViral disease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Congenital cytomegalovirus (cCMV) infection is a leading cause of sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL) and neurodevelopmental disabilities in children worldwide. Some regions in the United States and Canada have implemented universal newborn screening for cCMV, which requires molecular diagnostic technologies for identifying cCMV, such as PCR testing of newborn dried blood spots (DBS). This study aimed to evaluate the sensitivity of droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) compared to quantitative real-time PCR to detect CMV DNA in newborn DBS. The limit of detection of various ddPCR primer/probe combinations (singleplex UL55-HEX, singleplex UL83-FAM, and multiplex UL55-HEX/UL83-FAM) was evaluated using the National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) CMV quantitative standard. Singleplex UL55-HEX ddPCR exhibited the lowest limit of detection among the primer/probe combinations tested for ddPCR. UL55 ddPCR was then compared to real-time PCR in 49 infants with confirmed cCMV identified through newborn screening for CMV in saliva swabs and confirmed by a urine test. The results showed that ddPCR was only positive for 59% (29 out of 49) of the cCMV infants, while real-time PCR was positive for 80% (39 out of 49). Due to its lower sensitivity and throughput, ddPCR may not be suitable for cCMV newborn 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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.537
Threshold uncertainty score0.653

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.290 · 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

Citations7
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Neonatal ScreeningSame topicCytomegalovirus and herpesvirus researchFrench-language works237,207