Search

The purpose of this study was to develop a more accurate method for analyzing fashion image digital colors in uncertain observation conditions. The standard color values used in this experiment were obtained from 10 pieces of actual clothing provided by their designers. The comparison color values were created from fashion images using human visual perception, software color analysis, and a combination of human visual perception and software color analysis. The other 10 color values were determined using the method developed in this study. The data were processed using Microsoft Excel 2013 and the statistical program R 3.4.2. Descriptive analyses, 1‐way anova tests, and a multiple comparisons post‐test were conducted using false discovery rates. The results showed that a combination of human and software analysis produced more accurate results than either alone. ΔE*ab 3–6 was found to be the minimum color difference tolerance between actual clothing and fashion image. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study compared the performance of two commercial molecular assays, the STANDARD M10 Clostridioides difficile assay (M10) and the Xpert C. difficile assay (Xpert), for detecting toxigenic C. difficile in stool specimens. A total of 487 consecutive stool specimens submitted for routine C. difficile testing between June and November 2023 were included. Following routine testing using C. DIFF QUIK CHEK COMPLETE (QCC), M10 and Xpert were tested in parallel, alongside toxigenic culture (reference standard). Additionally, two-step algorithms, using QCC on the first step and either M10 or Xpert on the second step, were assessed. Both M10 and Xpert demonstrated a sensitivity and negative predictive value (NPV) of 100%. M10 exhibited significantly higher specificity and positive predictive value (PPV; 91.9% and 64.2%, respectively) than Xpert (90.3% and 59.8%, respectively). Both two-step algorithms showed a sensitivity and NPV of 98.4% and 99.8%, respectively. The specificity and PPV of the two-step algorithm using M10 (95.2% and 75.0%, respectively) were slightly higher than those of the one using Xpert (94.8% and 73.2%, respectively), without statistical significance. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis, assessing the predictive ability of cycle threshold (Ct) values for the detection of free toxin, exhibited an area under the curve of 0.825 for M10 and 0.843 for Xpert. This indicates the utility of Ct values as predictors for the detection of free toxin in both assays. In conclusion, M10 proves to be an effective diagnostic tool with performance comparable to Xpert, whether utilized independently or as part of a two-step algorithm., Competing Interests: This study was funded by SD Biosensor, South Korea. The sponsor was not involved in the study design, data interpretation, or preparation of the manuscript.

Background: The Automated Fluorescent Immunoassay System ROTA (AFIAS-Rota) and NORO (AFIAS-Noro) assays (Boditech Med Inc.) are newly developed diagnostic tests for rotavirus and norovirus infections., Methods: Performance of AFIAS-Rota/Noro assays was evaluated in comparison with RIDASCREEN ® Rotavirus and Norovirus ELISA kits (R-Biopharm) using clinical stool samples submitted from November 2018 to January 2019. Multiplex real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction was used as reference method., Results: A total of 256 clinical specimens were analyzed. AFIAS-Rota and RIDASCREEN Rotavirus had almost perfect agreement (Kappa value = 0.95), and substantial agreement was observed between AFIAS-Noro and RIDASCREEN Norovirus (Kappa value = 0.80). For detection of rotavirus, AFIAS and RIDASCREEN assays showed satisfactory diagnostic sensitivity (100% and 97.8%, respectively) and specificity (99.5% and 99.1%). For detection of norovirus, the RIDASCREEN assay showed significantly higher sensitivity than the AFIAS-Noro (86.0% and 66.0%, respectively; P = .002). Analytic specificity of AFIAS-Rota/Noro assays showed no cross-reactivity against any other bacteria (14 strains) or viruses (2 strains). Hands-on time (6 minutes) and turnaround time (26 minutes) required to perform AFIAS assays were much shorter than those required for RIDASCREEN assays (20 and 150 minutes, respectively)., Conclusion: The AFIAS-Rota/Noro assays showed overall excellent agreement with the RIDASCREEN assays. Although the AFIAS-Noro assay exhibited lower sensitivity than the RIDASCREEN Norovirus assay for detection of norovirus, the AFIAS-Rota/Noro assays could be useful as a rapid initial screening test in clinical laboratories due to its convenience and rapid turnaround time., (© 2020 The Authors. Journal of Clinical Laboratory Analysis published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.)