A Multi-Institutional Study Benchmarking Cycle Threshold Values for Major Clinical SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR Assays
Kirby, J. E.; Cheng, A.; Cleveland, M. H.; Degli-Angeli, E.; DeMarco, C. T.; Faron, M.; Gallagher, T. L.; Garlick, R. K.; Goecker, E.; Coombs, R. W.; Huang, C.; Louzao, R.; Denny, T. N.; Morreale, E.; Oakley, G.; Reymann, G.; Schade, A.; Scianna, S.; Tsongalis, G. J.; Vallone, P. M.; Huggett, J.; Ledeboer, N. A.; Lefferts, J. A.
Show abstract
Real-time, reverse transcriptase PCR assays are a pervasive technology used for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. These assays produce a cycle threshold value (Ct) corresponding to the first amplification cycle in which reliable amplification is detected. (1)Such Ct values have been used by clinicians and in public health settings to guide treatment, monitor disease progression, assess prognosis, and inform isolation practices. To understanding the risk of reporting out uncalibrated Ct values and potential for instead reporting out calibrated viral load values, we performed a multi-institutional study to benchmark major clinical platforms against a calibrated standard. We found that for any given Ct value, corresponding viral loads varied up to 1000-fold among the different tests. In contrast, when these different assays were calibrated against a common standard and then used to test unknown de-identified specimens at several dilutions, viral load values showed high precision between methods (standard deviation and range of 0.36 and 1.1 log10 genome copies) and high accuracy compared with droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) determinations (difference between mean CDC N2 and Sarbeco E ddPCR determinations and mean determinations by calibrated RT-PCR assays examined in our study of 0.044 log10 genome copies). We, therefore, find strong support for calibration of SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR tests to allow conversion of cycle thresholds to accurate and precise viral load values that are reproducible across major clinical systems. Implementation of calibrated assays will provide more reliable information for clinical decision making and allow more rigorous interpretation of SARS-CoV-2 laboratory data in clinical and laboratory investigation.
Matching journals
The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Multiplex Target-Redundant RT-LAMP for Robust Detection of SARS-CoV-2 Using Fluorescent Universal Displacement Probes 95%
- Longitudinal SARS-CoV-2 testing is punctuated by intermittent positivity and variable rates of cycle-threshold decline 94%
- Real-time RT-PCR Allelic Discrimination Assay for Detection of N501Y Mutation in the Spike Protein of SARS-CoV-2 Associated with Variants of Concern 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Patient DNA cross-reactivity of the CDC SARS-CoV-2 extraction control leads to an inherent potential for false negative results 96%
- Association between neutralizing antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 and commercial serological assays 94%
- Evaluation of high-throughput SARS-CoV-2 serological assays in a longitudinal cohort of mild COVID-19 patients: sensitivity, specificity and association with virus neutralization test 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Recommendations for sample pooling on the Cepheid GeneXpert(R) system using the Cepheid Xpert(R) Xpress SARS-CoV-2 assay 96%
- An international, interlaboratory ring trial confirms the feasibility of an open-source, extraction-less “direct” RT-qPCR method for reliable detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in clinical samples 94%
- A RT-qPCR system using a degenerate probe for specific identification and differentiation of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron (B.1.1.529) Variants of Concern 93%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.