Rapid and Easy Detection of Carbapenemases in Enterobacterales in the Routine Laboratory Using the New GenePOC Carba/Revogene Carba C Assay
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The novel, real-time PCR-based GenePOC Carba assay on the microfluidic revogene platform (GenePOC, Quebec, Canada; now Meridian Bioscience, Cincinnati, OH, USA) was recently designed for the detection of bla(KPC), bla(NDM), bla(VIM), bla(OXA-48-like), and bla(IMP). The goals of this study were to evaluate the performance of this assay, to assess its suitability for the routine microbiology laboratory, and to compare it to the Xpert Carba-R assay for the detection of carbapenemase-producing Enterobacterales (CPE) strains. The Xpert Carba-R assay (Cepheid) and the GenePOC Carba assay were challenged with a collection of 176 clinical Enterobacte-roles isolates. The collection included 133 CPE strains producing a total of 139 carbapenemases, including VIM (n = 48), OXA-48-like (n = 40), NDM (n = 29), KPC (n = 13), and IMP (n = 9). Six isolates produced two different carbapenemases, and 43 carbapenemase-negative isolates were included as negative controls. The overall sensitivity for carbapenemase detection was 96.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 91.9% to 98.5%) for the Xpert Carba-R assay and 100% (95% CI, 97.3% to 100%) for the GenePOC assay. The four most common carbapenemases (NDM, KPC, OXA-48-like, and VIM) were detected with a sensitivity of 100% (95% CI, 97.1% to 100%) by the two tests, with all double carbapenemase producers being correctly detected by both assays. The sensitivity of the Xpert Carba-R assay for IMP was 44.4% (95% CI, 18.9% to 73.3%), while that of the GenePOC assay was 100% (95% CI, 70.1% to 100%). The specificity of both assays was 100% (95% CI, 91.8% to 100%). The GenePOC Carba assay showed excellent sensitivity and specificity for the five most common carbapenemases, including IMP variants. Its simplicity and short turnaround time make it suitable for use in the routine microbiology laboratory for CPE detection.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".