Challenging the gold standard: the limitations of molecular assays for detection of<i>Mycobacterium tuberculosis</i>heteroresistance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives Heteroresistant infections are defined as infections in which a mixture of drug-resistant and drug-susceptible populations are present. In Mycobacterium tuberculosis ( M. tb ), heteroresistance poses a challenge in diagnosis and has been linked with poor treatment outcomes. We compared the analytical sensitivity of molecular methods, such as GeneXpert and whole genome sequencing (WGS) in detecting heteroresistance when compared with the ‘gold standard’ phenotypic assay: the agar proportion method (APM). Methods Using two rounds of proficiency surveys with defined monoresistant BCG strains and mixtures of susceptible/resistant M. tb , we determined the limit of detection (LOD) of known resistance associated mutations. Results The LOD for rifampin-R (RIF-R) detection was 1% using APM, 60% using GeneXpert MTB/RIF, 10% using GeneXpert MTB/RIF Ultra and 10% using WGS. While WGS could detect mutations beyond those associated with RIF resistance, the LOD for these other mutations was also 10%. Additionally, we observed instances where laboratories did not report resistance in the majority population, yet the mutations were present in the raw sequence data. Conclusion The gold standard APM detects minority resistant populations at a lower proportion than molecular tests. Mycobacterium bovis BCG strains with defined resistance and extracted DNA from M. tb provided concordant results and can serve in quality control of laboratories offering molecular testing for resistance. Further research is required to determine whether the higher LOD of molecular tests is associated with negative treatment outcomes.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".