MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392739358 · doi:10.1093/ofid/ofae084

Evaluation of Three Cytomegalovirus IgG Lateral Flow Assays for Rapid Determination of CMV Serostatus

2024· article· en· W4392739358 on OpenAlexaff
Laurel Joncas-Schronce, Fatima Al Ali, Gregory Pepper, Renee D. Stapleton, Gordon D. Rubenfeld, Michael Boeckh, Ajit P. Limaye

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Forum Infectious Diseases · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCytomegalovirus and herpesvirus research
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook Health Science Centre
FundersNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious DiseasesNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsSerostatusMedicineCytomegalovirusVirologyImmunologyVirusHerpesviridaeViral loadViral disease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Cytomegalovirus (CMV) serostatus is a major determinant of CMV infection, disease risk, and transplant outcomes. Current clinical serology assays are limited by relatively slow turnaround time, design for batched testing, need for trained personnel, and/or specialized equipment. Rapid diagnostic assays in development have a role in emerging settings, such as critically ill patients, but have not been systematically evaluated. Methods: We assessed the performance of 3 rapid lateral flow assays (LFAs) for the detection of CMV immunoglobulin (Ig)G antibodies compared with a reference commercially available CMV IgG enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay in residual serum samples from 200 consecutive adults who underwent clinical CMV serology testing. Samples with discrepant results between the LFA and reference assay were tested by a second reference assay. A subset of serum samples was assessed for interoperator variability. Operating characteristics of the QooLabs LFA were separately assessed in plasma samples. Results: The sensitivity and specificity of the individual LFA assays using serum varied significantly: 86%/83%, 99/93%, and 57/97%, for Healgen, QNow automated reader, and nanoComposix, respectively, compared with the reference assay. Results for the QNow assay were comparable between automated and manual reads. Among a subset of 10 serum samples assessed by 5 individual operators, 44 of 50 (88%) results were concordant. Among 50 plasma samples assessed by the QooLabs LFA, the sensitivity and specificity were 72% and 96%. Conclusions: The ease of performance, rapid turnaround time, and good operating characteristics provide the rationale for further evaluation of the Qoolabs QNow LFA in specialized settings where rapid assessment of CMV serostatus would be advantageous.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.318 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen Forum Infectious DiseasesSame topicCytomegalovirus and herpesvirus researchFrench-language works237,207