Comparison between the Roche Cobas 4800 Human Papillomavirus (HPV), Abbott RealTime High-Risk HPV, Seegene Anyplex II HPV28, and Novel Seegene Allplex HPV28 Assays for High-Risk HPV Detection and Genotyping in Mocked Self-Samples
Open accessAbstract
This study proves that the novel Allplex HPV28 assay has a good diagnostic performance in comparison with the well-known, validated, and frequently used Roche Cobas 4800, Abbott RealTime, and Anyplex II HPV28 assays. According to our experience, the novel Allplex HPV28 assay had a user-friendly and automated workflow with short hands-on time, had an open platform which facilitates the use of add-on assays, and provided quick and easy-to-interpret results.
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
In 114 mocked self-samples, the novel Seegene Allplex HPV28 assay showed high concordance with Roche Cobas 4800, Abbott RealTime HR HPV, and Seegene Anyplex II HPV28 for hrHPV detection and genotyping. Overall agreement was 85.9% under Abbott’s manufacturer cutoff and 91.2% under an adapted 32.00–36.00 cutoff.
Key findings
- All four HPV assays agreed in 85.9% (98/114) of samples using the Abbott RealTime manufacturer’s Cq cutoff for positivity (<32.00), and in 91.2% (104/114) using an adapted Cq range (32.00–36.00).
- Pairwise overall agreement ranged from 85.9% to 100.0% (κ = 0.42–1.00) with manufacturer guidelines and from 92.9% to 100.0% (κ = 0.60–1.00) with the adapted range. The lowest agreement was Roche Cobas vs Abbott RealTime (85.9%, κ = 0.42; adapted 92.9%, κ = 0.60), and the highest was Anyplex II HPV28 vs Allplex HPV28 (100%, κ = 1.00).
- HPV positivity rates were 92.9% (106/114) for Roche Cobas, 78.9% (90/114) for Abbott RealTime, 88.6% (101/114) for Anyplex II HPV28, and 88.6% (101/114) for Allplex HPV28. Coinfections were detected in 4.7% to 6.9% of samples, with Anyplex II HPV28 detecting the highest number (6.9%).
- Cq values of positive test results were strongly positively correlated across assays: r = 0.71, 0.73, and 0.78, all with P < 0.0001.
Methods
- Cross-sectional study within the ELEVATE project; 114 participants with cervical cytology data were selected from Belgium (24), Brazil (29), Ecuador (41), and Portugal (20). Two mocked self-samples per participant were collected by gynecologists using Viba-Brush devices, rinsed in Hologic ThinPrep medium except in Ecuador, where Roche Cell Collection medium was used, and analyzed with Roche Cobas 4800, Abbott RealTime HR HPV, Anyplex II HPV28, and Allplex HPV28 qPCR assays.
- Concordance was assessed by positive, negative, and overall percent agreement with Cohen’s kappa. Abbott RealTime results were analyzed using the manufacturer’s Cq cutoff (<32.00) and an adapted Cq range (32.00–36.00) for not-detected-but-amplified samples. Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated for Cq values, with negative samples assigned an arbitrary Cq of 45.0.
Limitations
- Stated by the authors: no reference standard assay was available for mocked self-samples; results refer to agreement in the presence of hrHPV genotypes in general rather than specific genotypes, and discrepancies within specific genotypes could still occur (e.g., Table S1 for Anyplex and Allplex). The authors also state that Ecuador samples used Roche Cell Collection medium instead of Hologic ThinPrep, acknowledged as a possible performance-bias limitation.
- Evident from the text: the samples were “mocked self-samples” collected by gynecologists rather than true self-collected specimens, and the study included only 114 selected samples balanced by location and cytology, which may limit generalizability.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
6 of 9 cited sources checked · 2 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured
- Findingcitation
Comparable to earlier research, HPV DNA positivity rates increased with higher cervical cytology grades for all included HPV assays.
“Comparable to earlier research (14), the positivity rates of HPV DNA increased with higher cervical cytology grades for all included HPV assays.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked- cites [14] Park Y, Lee E, Choi J, Jeong S, Kim HS. 2012. Comparison of the Abbott realtime high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV), Roche Cobas HPV, and Hybrid Capture 2 assays to direct sequencing and genotyping of HPV DNA. J Clin Microbiol 50: 2359– 2365. doi: 10.1128/JCM.00337-12. 22518863 PMC3405569 source
- Findingown data
No cervical cytology category other than cancer had a 100% HPV positivity rate for all HPV assays.
“While all assays were able to detect HPV DNA in 100% of the cancer cytology samples, no other cervical cytology category had a 100% positivity rate for all HPV assays.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
The NDBA phenomenon for the Abbott RealTime assay occurred frequently within the study's sample selection.
“the not detected but amplified (NDBA) phenomenon for the Abbott RealTime assay, i.e., the event in which the assay reports samples to be negative despite showing an amplification curve with a Cq value higher than the manufacturer’s positivity cutoff (32.00), as described by earlier research of Kim and colleagues (21), also occurred frequently within our sample selection.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Of the 11 samples that initially showed discrepancies for the Abbott RealTime assay, 7 (63.6%) could be explained by a similar phenomenon with Cq value ≥32.00.
“Of the 11 samples that initially showed discrepancies for the Abbott RealTime assay, 7 (63.6%) could be explained by a similar phenomenon as the one explained above (Cq value, ≥32.00).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
For ASC-H cervical cytology, Abbott RealTime, Anyplex, and Allplex HPV28 assays showed reduced positivity rates compared with LSIL cytology.
“For the ASC-H cervical cytology, however, the Abbott RealTime, Anyplex, and Allplex HPV28 assays demonstrated deviating results, indicating reduced positivity rates compared with LSIL cytology.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
- Findingown data
Intercomparison of the included HPV assays showed overall agreement ranging from 85.9% to 100.0% (κ = 0.42 to 1.00) when using the manufacturer's guidelines.
“An intercomparison of the included assays demonstrated an overall agreement ranging from 85.9 to 100.0% (κ = 0.42 to 1.00) when using the manufacturer’s guidelines and 92.9 to 100.0% (κ = 0.60 to 1.00) with the adapted range.”
- Also stated in: § Concordance for detecting any hrHPV genotype between the four HPV assays. · plain
“The overall agreement initially ranged from 85.9% to 100.0%, with corresponding kappa coefficients ranging from 0.42 to 1.00 (Table 6).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Also stated in: § Concordance for detecting any hrHPV genotype between the four HPV assays. · plain
- Findingown data
The Anyplex and Allplex HPV28 assays showed perfect (100.0%) agreement.
“Further intercomparison showed a perfect (100.0%) agreement between the Anyplex and Allplex HPV28 assays”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
The lowest agreement was between Roche Cobas and Abbott RealTime (85.9%, κ=0.42 with manufacturer cutoff; 92.9%, κ=0.60 with adapted cutoff).
“While for both the manufacturer-recommended and adapted conditions, the lowest agreement was seen between the Roche Cobas and Abbott RealTime HPV assays (85.9%, κ = 0.42; and 92.9%, κ = 0.60, respectively), the highest agreement was seen between the Anyplex and Allplex HPV28 assays (100%, κ = 1.00).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
Intercomparison of the included HPV assays showed overall agreement ranging from 92.9% to 100.0% (κ = 0.60 to 1.00) when using the adapted Abbott RealTime Cq range.
“An intercomparison of the included assays demonstrated an overall agreement ranging from 85.9 to 100.0% (κ = 0.42 to 1.00) when using the manufacturer’s guidelines and 92.9 to 100.0% (κ = 0.60 to 1.00) with the adapted range.”
- Also stated in: § Concordance for detecting any hrHPV genotype between the four HPV assays. · plain
“When using the less stringent Abbott RealTime Cq range for positivity, however, these agreements ranged from 92.9% to 100.0%, with corresponding kappa coefficients ranging from 0.60 to 1.00 (Table 7).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Also stated in: § Concordance for detecting any hrHPV genotype between the four HPV assays. · plain
- Findingown data
All four HPV assays detected HPV DNA in 100% of cancer cytology samples.
“While all assays were able to detect HPV DNA in 100% of the cancer cytology samples, no other cervical cytology category had a 100% positivity rate for all HPV assays.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
After using an adapted Abbott RealTime Cq cutoff of 32.00 to 36.00, three ASC-H samples initially reported as negative showed hrHPV presence with Cq values of 32.93, 35.32, and 32.32.
“After analyzing the results using this adapted cutoff, the three ASC-H samples that were initially reported as negative nevertheless demonstrated a presence of hrHPV but with associated Cq values of 32.93, 35.32, and 32.32.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
In 114 mocked self-samples, results of all four HPV assays agreed in 91.2% of cases when using an adapted Abbott RealTime Cq range (32.00 to 36.00).
“Results of all four HPV assays agreed in 85.9% of the cases when using the Abbott RealTime manufacturer’s recommended quantification cycle (Cq) cutoff for positivity (<32.00) and 91.2% when using an adapted range (32.00 to 36.00).”
- Also stated in: § Concordance for detecting any hrHPV genotype between the four HPV assays. · plain
“The HPV assays hereafter agreed in 91.2%, with 7.0% of all cases testing negative and 84.2% testing positive (Table 5).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Also stated in: § Concordance for detecting any hrHPV genotype between the four HPV assays. · plain
- Findingown data
The ASC-H sample missed by both Seegene tests was one of the three ASC-H samples also missed by the Abbott RealTime assay.
“the ASC-H sample that was missed with both Seegene tests was one of the three ASC-H samples that was also missed by the Abbott RealTime assay”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
The Seegene assays and the Abbott RealTime assay showed 90.4% agreement.
“and an agreement of 95.6% and 90.4% between the Seegene assays and the Roche Cobas and Abbott RealTime assays, respectively.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
For all HPV assays except Roche Cobas, positivity rates were higher for HSIL samples than for LSIL samples.
“For all HPV assays, except for the Roche Cobas assay, positivity rates were higher for HSIL samples than those for LSIL samples.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
Coinfections were detected in 4.7% to 6.9% of all samples.
“Coinfections were detected in 4.7 to 6.9% of all samples, with the Anyplex II HPV28 assay detecting the highest number of coinfections compared with other HPV assays (Table 3).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
The highest agreement was between Anyplex and Allplex HPV28 assays (100%, κ=1.00).
“While for both the manufacturer-recommended and adapted conditions, the lowest agreement was seen between the Roche Cobas and Abbott RealTime HPV assays (85.9%, κ = 0.42; and 92.9%, κ = 0.60, respectively), the highest agreement was seen between the Anyplex and Allplex HPV28 assays (100%, κ = 1.00).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
For the two HSIL cases initially missed by the Abbott RealTime assay, results reported as negative indicated Cq values of 32.37 and 32.47 (≥32.00).
“For the two HSIL cases initially missed by the Abbott RealTime assay, a similar situation could be observed (Cq, ≥32.00), with results reported as negative indicating Cq values of 32.37 and 32.47.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
In 114 mocked self-samples, results of all four HPV assays agreed in 85.9% of cases when using the Abbott RealTime manufacturer's recommended Cq cutoff for positivity (<32.00).
“Results of all four HPV assays agreed in 85.9% of the cases when using the Abbott RealTime manufacturer’s recommended quantification cycle (Cq) cutoff for positivity (<32.00) and 91.2% when using an adapted range (32.00 to 36.00).”
- Also stated in: § Concordance for detecting any hrHPV genotype between the four HPV assays. · plain
“When applying the Abbott manufacturer’s cutoff for positivity (Table 4), the test results agreed in 85.9% of all samples.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Also stated in: § Concordance for detecting any hrHPV genotype between the four HPV assays. · plain
- Findingown data
The Anyplex II HPV28 assay detected the highest number of coinfections compared with the other HPV assays.
“Coinfections were detected in 4.7 to 6.9% of all samples, with the Anyplex II HPV28 assay detecting the highest number of coinfections compared with other HPV assays (Table 3).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
All samples additionally found positive with the less stringent Abbott cutoff contained hrHPV genotypes other than HPV16 and HPV18.
“All samples that were additionally found positive contained hrHPV genotypes other than HPV16 and HPV18.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
After using the less stringent Abbott RealTime Cq cutoff (32.00-36.00), seven samples reported negative with the manufacturer's cutoff demonstrated presence of hrHPV (Cq range 32.32-35.52; median 33.63).
“After the use of the less stringent Abbott RealTime Cq cutoff for positivity (Table 5), seven samples that were reported as negative with the manufacturer’s cutoff nevertheless demonstrated presence of hrHPV (Cq value range, 32.32 to 35.52; median Cq, 33.63).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
For the four remaining discordances and the five samples testing positive with Roche Cobas but negative with all other HPV assays, no NDBA cases were observed.
“For the four remaining discordances, as well as for the five samples testing positive with the Roche Cobas assay but negative with all other HPV assays, no NDBA cases were observed.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
With the less stringent Abbott cutoff, five samples still tested negative by Abbott RealTime while testing positive with all other HPV assays (n=1 LSIL; n=3 normal cytology) or with Roche Cobas only (n=1 LSIL).
“Moreover, by using this less stringent Abbott RealTime cutoff, five samples still tested negative for HPV DNA by the Abbott RealTime assay while testing positive with all other HPV assays (n = 1, LSIL; n = 3, normal cytology) or with the Roche Cobas assay only (n = 1, LSIL).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
The Roche Cobas and Abbott RealTime assays demonstrated an overall agreement of 85.9%.
“our results by the Roche Cobas and Abbott RealTime assay demonstrated an overall agreement of 85.9%.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Among the four HPV assays, test results agreed in 85.9% of all cases when using the Abbott RealTime manufacturer's Cq cutoff for positivity (<32.00).
“Regarding the concordance among the four HPV assays, test results agreed in 85.9% of all cases when using the Abbott RealTime manufacturer’s Cq cutoff for positivity (<32.00).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
The Seegene assays and the Roche Cobas assay showed 95.6% agreement.
“and an agreement of 95.6% and 90.4% between the Seegene assays and the Roche Cobas and Abbott RealTime assays, respectively.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Of all samples, 11 samples (9.7%) tested positive with all HPV assays except the Abbott RealTime assay.
“Of all samples, 11 samples (9.7%) tested positive with all HPV assays, except for the Abbott RealTime assay.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
When NDBA samples were regarded as positive, the overall agreement between the four HPV assays increased to 91.2%.
“When NDBA samples were regarded as positive, the overall agreement between the four HPV assays moreover increased to 91.2%.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Discrepancies within specific hrHPV genotypes could still occur without being displayed in the study's test results, as demonstrated in Table S1 for the Anyplex and Allplex HPV28 assays.
“Considering that discrepancies within specific hrHPV genotypes could still occur without being displayed in our test results, as demonstrated in Table S1 for the Anyplex and Allplex HPV 28”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
When NDBA samples were regarded as positive, the agreement between the Abbott RealTime and Roche Cobas assays rose to 92.9%.
“the agreement between the Abbott RealTime and Roche Cobas assays rose to 92.9%”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
When NDBA samples were regarded as positive, the agreement between the Abbott RealTime and the two Seegene assays increased to 96.5%.
“the agreement between the Abbott RealTime and the two Seegene assays increased to 96.5%”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Adjustment of the Abbott RealTime Cq cutoff for positivity resulted in considerable changes when comparing results before and after adjustment.
“our analysis hereby demonstrated considerable changes when comparing the results both before and after adjustment of the Abbott RealTime Cq cutoff for positivity.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationown data
The novel Allplex HPV28 assay has good diagnostic performance in comparison with the Roche Cobas 4800, Abbott RealTime, and Anyplex II HPV28 assays.
“This study proves that the novel Allplex HPV28 assay has a good diagnostic performance in comparison with the well-known, validated, and frequently used Roche Cobas 4800, Abbott RealTime, and Anyplex II HPV28 assays.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Mocked self-samples (semicervical samples collected by gynecologists using the Viba-Brush) are representative of actual self-samples for HPV assay comparison.
- Rests on an assumption: Agreement with the comparator HPV assays indicates good diagnostic performance.
- Premisecitation
Previous research by Cho and colleagues (2019) analyzing vaginal self-samples with Abbott RealTime, Roche Cobas, and Anyplex II HPV28 also reported the highest positivity rate for Roche Cobas (mean 87.4%).
“These findings are in line with previous research from Cho and colleagues (2019), who analyzed vaginal self-samples with the Abbott RealTime, Roche Cobas, and Anyplex II HPV28 assays and hereby also reported the highest positivity rate for the Roche Cobas assay (mean positivity rate of 87.4%) (20).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [20] Cho HW, Ouh YT, Hong JH, Min KJ, So KA, Kim TJ, Paik ES, Lee JW, Moon JH, Lee JK. 2019. Comparison of urine, self-collected vaginal swab, and cervical swab samples for detecting human papillomavirus (HPV) with Roche Cobas HPV, Anyplex II HPV, and RealTime HR-S HPV assay. J Virol Methods 269: 77– 82. doi: 10.1016/j.jviromet.2019.04.012. 30998958 source
- Interpretationown data
The novel Allplex HPV28 assay demonstrates comparable performance to available qPCR HPV assays (Roche Cobas 4800, Abbott RealTime, Anyplex II HPV28).
“Based on these findings, we imply that the novel Allplex HPV28 assay demonstrates a comparable performance to those of available qPCR HPV assays, potentially providing opportunities for the simplification and standardization of future large-scale testing.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Mocked self-samples (semicervical samples collected by gynecologists using the Viba-Brush) are representative of actual self-samples for HPV assay comparison.
- Rests on an assumption: Agreement with the comparator HPV assays indicates good diagnostic performance.
- Interpretationreasoning
hrHPV DNA might be present in the ASC-H sample missed by both Seegene tests and Abbott RealTime, but with low viral loads.
“indicating that hrHPV DNA might be present in this sample but with low viral loads.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationown data
This study shows high concordance between results of the included HPV assays on mocked self-samples.
“This study thereby shows high concordance between results of the included HPV assays on mocked self-samples.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationown data
The novel Allplex HPV28 assay has good diagnostic performance in comparison with the Roche Cobas, Abbott RealTime, and Anyplex II HPV28 assays.
“Our study proved that the novel Allplex HPV28 assay has a good diagnostic performance in comparison with the well-known, validated, and frequently used Roche Cobas, Abbott RealTime, and Anyplex II HPV28 assays.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
- Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 5
- May combine two claims. 8
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationThe Roche Cobas 4800 assay is known for having relatively high sensitivity compared with other HPV assays.
“as shown by multiple previous studies, the Roche Cobas 4800 assay is known for having a relatively high sensitivity compared with other HPV assays (12, 13, 17).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim2 of 3 sources checked- cites [12] Arbyn M, Smith SB, Temin S, Sultana F, Castle P, Collaboration on Self-Sampling and HPV Testing. 2018. Detecting cervical precancer and reaching underscreened women by using HPV testing on self samples: updated meta-analyses. BMJ 363: k4823. doi: 10.1136/bmj.k4823. 30518635 PMC6278587 source
The Results (Accuracy of hrHPV assay; page unavailable) report high pooled sensitivity for PCR-based HPV assays and lower sensitivity for signal-amplification assays on self samples. The paper does not give a Cobas 4800-specific sensitivity estimate or establish that Cobas is more sensitive than other HPV assays; Cobas 4800 appears in a reference title. (LLM, conf=0.78)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured - cites [13] Cuzick J, Cadman L, Mesher D, Austin J, Ashdown-Barr L, Ho L, Terry G, Liddle S, Wright C, Lyons D, Szarewski A. 2013. Comparing the performance of six human papillomavirus tests in a screening population. Br J Cancer 108: 908– 913. doi: 10.1038/bjc.2013.22. 23370211 PMC3590662 source
- cites [17] Ouh YT, Park JJ, Kang M, Kim M, Song JY, Shin SJ, Shim SH, Yoo HJ, Lee M, Lee SJ, Shin W, Chong GO, Choi MC, Choi CH, Min KJ. 2022. Comparative performance of various human papillomavirus assays available in Korea for detecting cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 48: 207– 214. doi: 10.1111/jog.15078. 34713538 source
Classified as probably not a substantial claim.
Interpretationown dataThe study supports the conclusion that manufacturer's Cq cutoffs for positivity in HPV assays should always be handled with caution, especially when performing research within different age categories, socioeconomic settings, or types of (self-)sampling.
“our study supports the assumption of other previous studies which concluded that the, often for specific circumstances validated and optimized, manufacturer’s Cq cutoffs for positivity in HPV assays should always be handled with caution, especially when performing research within different age categories (23), socioeconomic”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim3 of 3 sources checked- cites [23] Kang LN, Jeronimo J, Qiao YL, Zhao FH, Chen W, Valdez M, Zhang X, Bansil P, Paul P, Bai P, Peck R, Li J, Chen F, Stoler MH, Castle PE. 2014. Optimal positive cutoff points for careHPV testing of clinician- and self-collected specimens in primary cervical cancer screening: an analysis from rural China. J Clin Microbiol 52: 1954– 1961. doi: 10.1128/JCM.03432-13. 24671789 PMC4042749 source
The Discussion says the manufacturer-set careHPV threshold warrants consideration and recommends different cutoffs for clinician- and self-collected specimens. It also says the study could not adequately assess age-specific cutoffs. The paper uses relative light units/cutoff ratios, not Cq cutoffs, and does not establish that manufacturer cutoffs for HPV assays should always be treated cautiously across socioeconomic settings. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured - cites [24] Kuhn L, Saidu R, Boa R, Tergas A, Moodley J, Persing D, Campbell S, Tsai WY, Wright TC, Denny L. 2020. Clinical evaluation of modifications to a human papillomavirus assay to optimise its utility for cervical cancer screening in low-resource settings: a diagnostic accuracy study. Lancet Glob Health 8: e296– e304. doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X(19)30527-3. 31981559 PMC8720235 source
Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured - cites [25] Sargent A, Fletcher S, Bray K, Kitchener HC, Crosbie EJ. 2019. Cross-sectional study of HPV testing in self-sampled urine and comparison with matched vaginal and cervical samples in women attending colposcopy for the management of abnormal cervical screening. BMJ Open 9: e025388. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-025388. PMC6502061 31036707 source
The Discussion (page unavailable) says more work is needed to define clinically useful viral-load thresholds for urine testing, which supports some caution when applying assay thresholds to a different sample type. But it also says the manufacturer’s cut-offs appeared appropriate for the urine samples studied. The paper does not assess whether cut-offs require particular caution across age categories or socioeconomic settings, so it does not support the claim’s broader conclusion. (LLM, conf=0.82)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
May combine two claims.
Findingown dataAmong samples positive with all HPV assays using the manufacturer's cutoff, 12 were positive for HPV16, 7 for HPV18, and 71 for other hrHPV genotypes.
“Among the samples found positive with all HPV assays, 12 samples were positive for HPV16, 7 samples were positive for HPV18, and 71 samples tested positive for other hrHPV genotypes.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataFor all assays, Cq values of positive test results were strongly positively correlated (r = 0.71, 0.73, 0.78) and statistically significant (P < 0.0001).
“For all assays, highly significant, strongly positive Pearson correlations were shown between the Cq values of positive test results.”
- Also stated in: § Pearson correlation between Cq values of the HPV assays. · boosted
“All Cq values of the different HPV assays were demonstrated to be strongly and positively correlated (r values of 0.71, 0.73, and 0.78) and statistically significant (all P values are <0.0001).”
- Also stated in: § Pearson correlation between Cq values of the HPV assays. · hedged
“Graphs visualize a significant Pearson’s correlation between the Cq values of all qPCR HPV assays (r = 0.71, P < 0.001; r = 0.78, P < 0.001; 0.73, P < 0.001), indicating a strongly positive relationship.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Also stated in: § Pearson correlation between Cq values of the HPV assays. · boosted
May combine two claims.
Findingown dataThe Roche Cobas assay showed the highest overall HPV positivity rate, with 100% positivity for all cytology categories apart from normal and ASC-US cytology.
“The Roche Cobas assay overall showed the highest positivity rate, with 100% HPV positivity for all cytology categories, apart from normal and ASC-US cytology.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataOverall HPV DNA positivity rates in the study ranged between 78.9% and 92.9% (mean 87.3%), with the highest positivity rate for Roche Cobas.
“Overall, HPV DNA positivity rates within our study ranged between 78.9% and 92.9% (mean positivity rate of 87.3%), with the highest positivity rate detected for the Roche Cobas HPV assay.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataRoche Cobas detected all positive ASC-H cases (n=17), while Anyplex and Allplex each missed one case and Abbott RealTime missed three.
“While the Roche Cobas assay detected all positive cases (n = 17) of ASC-H cervical cytology, the Anyplex and Allplex HPV28 assays both missed one case and the Abbott RealTime missed three.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataDiscordances between Anyplex II HPV28 and Allplex HPV28 were present for hrHPV genotypes 51, 52, and 59, with Anyplex detecting 9, 13, and 10 samples and Allplex detecting 10, 14, and 12 samples, respectively.
“Discordances were present for hrHPV genotypes 51, 52, and 59, with the Anyplex II HPV28 assay detecting 9, 13, and 10 samples, respectively, and the Allplex HPV28 assay detecting 10, 14, and 12 samples, respectively (see Table S1 in the supplemental material).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataAnyplex and Allplex HPV28 assays demonstrated perfect agreement for the "other" hrHPV genotypes, but discrepancies within these genotypes were observed.
“Although the Anyplex and Allplex HPV28 assays demonstrate a perfect agreement in the examination of the results for the “other” hrHPV genotypes, discrepancies within these other hrHPV genotypes could be observed.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataUsing the manufacturer's cutoff, 5 (4.4%) samples tested positive by Roche Cobas but negative with the other HPV assays, and 11 (9.7%) samples were positive by all HPV assays except Abbott RealTime.
“Moreover, 5 (4.4%) samples tested positive by the Roche Cobas HPV assay but negative with the other HPV assays and 11 (9.7%) samples were positive by all HPV assays, except for the Abbott RealTime HR HPV assay.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim.
PremisecitationKim and colleagues suggested that NDBA samples should be regarded as equivocal, not negative, because they could indicate low-copy hrHPV.
“Kim and colleagues (21) suggested that samples NDBA should be regarded as equivocal, not negative, considering that they could be a sign of a low-copy presence of hrHPV.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Kim and colleagues (21)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Classified as probably not a substantial claim.
InterpretationreasoningResults found within the study refer to agreement in the presence of hrHPV genotypes in general (HPV16, HPV18, and other hrHPVs), rather than to specific genotypes.
“results found within our study refer to the agreement in the presence of hrHPV genotypes in general (HPV16, HPV18, and other hrHPVs), rather than of specific genotypes.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).
Study design and conductnone givenThe origin-specific use of preservation medium (Roche Cell Collection medium in Ecuador instead of Hologic ThinPrep medium) results in a minimal chance of performance bias because of potential increased or decreased compatibility with a specific HPV assay.
“As this origin-specific use of preservation medium results in a minimal chance of performance bias because of potential increased or decreased compatibility with a specific HPV assay, we acknowledge this as a limitation of our study.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
The paper relies on this without support.
No published studies have compared the Allplex HPV28 assay with commercially available HPV assays.
“Interestingly, considering the novelty of the Allplex 28 HPV assay, no published studies have compared this assay with commercially available HPV assays.”
The paper relies on this without support.
This is the first study to compare the performances of these HPV assays with that of the novel Allplex HPV28 assay.
“However, to the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to compare the performances of these HPV assays with that of the novel Allplex HPV28 assay.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Mocked self-samples (semicervical samples collected by gynecologists using the Viba-Brush) are representative of actual self-samples for HPV assay comparison.
“A total of 114 mocked self-samples, i.e., semicervical samples collected by gynecologists using the Viba-Brush, were analyzed with all four HPV assays.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Agreement with the comparator HPV assays indicates good diagnostic performance.
“This study proves that the novel Allplex HPV28 assay has a good diagnostic performance in comparison with the well-known, validated, and frequently used Roche Cobas 4800, Abbott RealTime, and Anyplex II HPV28 assays.”
The paper relies on this without support.
No reference standard assay for the use of mocked self-samples was available.
“As no reference standard assay for the use of mocked self-samples was available, concordance in terms of detecting and genotyping (HPV16, HPV18, and other hrHPV) HPV among the four different HPV assays was assessed by the positive percent agreement, the negative percent agreement, and the overall percent agreement with Cohen’s kappa score calculation.”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
A previous study by Bell M. et al. demonstrated a high concordance between the Allplex HPV28 and Anyplex II HPV28 assays in mocked self-samples (100% concordance, K = 1.00, analysis performed on the 14 HPV types included in set A).
“Our results are in line with a previous study conducted by Bell M. et al., demonstrating a high concordance between the AllplexTM HPV28 and AnyplexTM II HPV28 assays in mocked self-samples (100% concordance, K = 1.00, analysis performed on the 14 HPV types included in set A) [19].”
From Comparative evaluation of Allplex HPV28 and Anyplex II HPV28 assays for high-risk HPV genotyping in cervical samples (2025) · cites this paper as [19]
The Results section, ‘Concordance for detecting any hrHPV genotype’ (page unavailable), reports 100% agreement and κ = 1.00 between Anyplex and Allplex in mocked self-samples. However, the Methods section, ‘Data analysis’ (page unavailable), says the comparison grouped high-risk genotypes other than HPV16 and HPV18; the paper does not identify this as a ‘set A’ analysis of 14 individual types. The Results also note discrepancies for individual genotypes 51, 52, and 59. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredRecent data report a slightly higher detection rate of multiple HPV infections using the Anyplex II HPV28 assay compared with the Allplex HPV28 assay.
“This observation aligns with recent data reporting a slightly higher detection rate of multiple HPV infections using the AnyplexTM II HPV28 assay compared with the AllplexTM HPV28 assay [19].”
From Comparative evaluation of Allplex HPV28 and Anyplex II HPV28 assays for high-risk HPV genotyping in cervical samples (2025) · cites this paper as [19]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Adapted-cutoff Roche-Abbott agreement conflicts with Table 5
MajorIn Table 5, Roche and Abbott agree for the 8 jointly negative samples, the 96 samples positive by all assays, and the 1 sample positive by Roche and Abbott only: 105 of 114, or 92.1%. Table 7 instead reports 92.9%.
“| − | − | − | − | 8 (7.0)c | NA | | + | + | + | + | 96 (84.2)c | HPV16 (12), HPV18 (7), Other hrHPV (77) | | + | − | − | − | 5 (4.4) | Other hrHPV (5) | | + | − | + | + | 4 (3.5) | Other hrHPV (4) | | + | + | − | − | 1 (0.9) | Other hrHPV (1) |”
“| Roche Cobas | Overall agreement (95% CI) | 92.9 (86.64–96.92) | 95.6 (89.34–98.45) | 95.6 (89.34–98.45) |”
Adapted-cutoff Abbott-Seegene agreement conflicts with Table 5
MajorTable 5 gives 96 jointly positive and 13 jointly negative Abbott-Seegene results, for 109 agreements among 114 samples (95.6%). Table 7 reports 96.5% for Abbott against either Seegene assay.
“| − | − | − | − | 8 (7.0)c | NA | | + | + | + | + | 96 (84.2)c | HPV16 (12), HPV18 (7), Other hrHPV (77) | | + | − | − | − | 5 (4.4) | Other hrHPV (5) | | + | − | + | + | 4 (3.5) | Other hrHPV (4) | | + | + | − | − | 1 (0.9) | Other hrHPV (1) |”
“| Abbott RealTime | Overall agreement (95% CI) | | 96.5 (91.26–99.04) | 96.5 (91.26–99.04) |”
Text understates the remaining Abbott-negative discrepancies
MinorThe text describes five samples that remained Abbott-negative while positive by another assay. Table 5 lists nine such samples: five positive by Roche alone and four positive by Roche and both Seegene assays.
“Moreover, by using this less stringent Abbott RealTime cutoff, five samples still tested negative for HPV DNA by the Abbott RealTime assay while testing positive with all other HPV assays (n = 1, LSIL; n = 3, normal cytology) or with the Roche Cobas assay only (n = 1, LSIL).”
“| + | − | − | − | 5 (4.4) | Other hrHPV (5) | | + | − | + | + | 4 (3.5) | Other hrHPV (4) |”
Table 5 loses a Seegene-positive sample
MinorTable 5 has 96 samples positive by all assays and 4 positive by both Seegene assays but negative by Abbott, giving 100 Seegene-positive samples. Table 3 reports 101 for each Seegene assay, although the adapted cutoff changes only Abbott results.
“| + | + | + | + | 96 (84.2)c | HPV16 (12), HPV18 (7), Other hrHPV (77) | | + | − | − | − | 5 (4.4) | Other hrHPV (5) | | + | − | + | + | 4 (3.5) | Other hrHPV (4) |”
“| All (114) | 106 (92.9) | 90 (78.9) | 101 (88.6) | 101 (88.6) | 5 (4.7) | 5 (5.6) | 7 (6.9) | 6 (5.9) |”
Cites
The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2529310 · Cited by 81,148 · cited 1× · see citing works
“00 as a poor agreement between the different tests (22).”
BackgroundHuman papillomavirus and cervical cancer
Burd, E. M. (2003) · Clinical Microbiology Reviews · doi:10.1128/cmr.16.1.1-17.2003 · Cited by 2,420 · see citing works
Arbyn, M., Smith, S. B., Temin, S., Sultana, F., & Castle, P. (2018) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.k4823 · Cited by 851 · see citing works
Meijer, C. J. L. M., Berkhof, J., Castle, P. E., Hesselink, A. T., Franco, E. L., Ronco, G., Arbyn, M., Bosch, F. X., Cuzick, J., Dillner, J., et al. (2009) · International Journal of Cancer · doi:10.1002/ijc.24010 · Cited by 692 · cited 1× · see citing works
“However, since 2015, the European Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Cervical Cancer Screening encourage the use of HPV DNA tests for primary screening (7, 8).”
BackgroundCervical Cancer Screening: Past, Present, and Future
Bedell, S. L., Goldstein, L. S., Goldstein, A. R., & Goldstein, A. T. (2020) · Sexual Medicine Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.sxmr.2019.09.005 · Cited by 500 · cited 2× · see citing works
“Not only have these methods proven to be more sensitive and efficient than cytology methods, they are also more objective as they do not rely on visual inspection expertise (6).”
BackgroundMethodMucosal and Cutaneous Human Papillomavirus Infections and Cancer Biology
Gheit, T. (2019) · Frontiers in Oncology · doi:10.3389/fonc.2019.00355 · Cited by 332 · cited 1× · see citing works
“HPV is a small, nonenveloped DNA virus, possessing the ability to infect cutaneous or mucosal surfaces (3).”
BackgroundHuman Papillomavirus (HPV), HPV-Related Disease, and the HPV Vaccine.
Braaten, K. P., & Laufer, M. R. (2008) · PubMed · Cited by 219 · see citing works
Comparing the performance of six human papillomavirus tests in a screening population
Cuzick, J., Cadman, L., Mesher, D., Austin, J., Ashdown-Barr, L., Ho, L., Terry, G., Liddle, S., Wright, C., Lyons, D., et al. (2013) · British Journal of Cancer · doi:10.1038/bjc.2013.22 · Cited by 211 · cited 2× · see citing works
“However, as shown by multiple previous studies, the Roche Cobas 4800 assay is known for having a relatively high sensitivity compared with other HPV assays (12, 13, 17).”
MethodCommercially available molecular tests for human papillomaviruses (HPV): 2015 update
Poljak, M., Kocjan, B. J., Oštrbenk, A., & Seme, K. (2015) · Journal of Clinical Virology · doi:10.1016/j.jcv.2015.10.023 · Cited by 126 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Over the past years, over 100 different HPV assays have been developed, and they widely vary in the number and type of target HPV genotypes, their working mechanism, and their clinical utility (9, 10).”
BackgroundSargent, A., Fletcher, S., Bray, K., Kitchener, H. C., & Crosbie, E. J. (2019) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2018-025388 · Cited by 75 · see citing works
Kuhn, L., Saidu, R., Boa, R., Tergas, A., Moodley, J., Persing, D., Campbell, S., Tsai, W.-Y., Wright, T. C., & Denny, L. (2020) · The Lancet Global Health · doi:10.1016/s2214-109x(19)30527-3 · Cited by 65 · cited 1× · see citing works
“As such, our study supports the assumption of other previous studies which concluded that the, often for specific circumstances validated and optimized, manufacturer’s Cq cutoffs for positivity in HPV assays should always be handled with caution, especially when performing research within different age categories (23)…”
ResultAdvances in technologies for cervical cancer detection in low-resource settings
Kundrod, K. A., Smith, C. A., Hunt, B., Schwarz, R. A., Schmeler, K. M., & Richards-Kortum, R. R. (2019) · Expert Review of Molecular Diagnostics · doi:10.1080/14737159.2019.1648213 · Cited by 55 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Over the past years, over 100 different HPV assays have been developed, and they widely vary in the number and type of target HPV genotypes, their working mechanism, and their clinical utility (9, 10).”
BackgroundPark, Y., Lee, E., Choi, J., Jeong, S., & Kim, H.-S. (2012) · Journal of Clinical Microbiology · doi:10.1128/jcm.00337-12 · Cited by 51 · see citing works
Gage, J. C., Sadorra, M., LaMere, B. J., Kail, R., Aldrich, C., Kinney, W., Fetterman, B. J., Lorey, T. S., SCHIFFMAN, M. H., Castle, P. E., et al. (2011) · Journal of Clinical Microbiology · doi:10.1128/jcm.05989-11 · Cited by 47 · see citing works
Cho, H.-W., Ouh, Y.-T., Hong, J. H., Min, K. J., So, K. A., Kim, T. J., Paik, E. S., Lee, J., Moon, J. H., & Lee, J. K. (2019) · Journal of Virological Methods · doi:10.1016/j.jviromet.2019.04.012 · Cited by 42 · see citing works
Methodologies of Primary HPV Testing Currently Applied for Cervical Cancer Screening
Chrysostomou, A. C., & Kostrikis, L. G. (2020) · Life · doi:10.3390/life10110290 · Cited by 37 · cited 3× · see citing works
“However, since 2015, the European Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Cervical Cancer Screening encourage the use of HPV DNA tests for primary screening (7, 8).”
BackgroundOštrbenk, A., Xu, L., Arbyn, M., & Poljak, M. (2018) · Journal of Clinical Microbiology · doi:10.1128/jcm.01176-18 · Cited by 34 · cited 1× · see citing works
“The Anyplex II HPV28 assay utilizes the TOCE system in combination with a cyclic melting temperature analysis and generates semiquantitative results (15, 16), whereas the more recently developed Allplex HPV 28 assay uses a multiple detection temperature technology, generating individual quantification cycle (Cq) value…”
MethodCornall, A. M., Poljak, M., Garland, S. M., Phillips, S., Tan, J. H., Machalek, D. A., Quinn, M. A., & Tabrizi, S. N. (2017) · European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1007/s10096-016-2831-5 · Cited by 22 · cited 2× · see citing works
“Earlier studies evaluated and compared the Roche Cobas, Abbott RealTime, and Anyplex II HPV28 assays to each other (13, 14, 17) and to other HPV DNA assays (11, 15, 18, 19).”
MethodKang, L.-N., Jeronimo, J., Qiao, Y.-L., Zhao, F.-H., Chen, W., Valdez, M., Zhang, X., Bansil, P., Paul, P., Bai, P., et al. (2014) · Journal of Clinical Microbiology · doi:10.1128/jcm.03432-13 · Cited by 21 · cited 1× · see citing works
“As such, our study supports the assumption of other previous studies which concluded that the, often for specific circumstances validated and optimized, manufacturer’s Cq cutoffs for positivity in HPV assays should always be handled with caution, especially when performing research within different age categories (23)…”
ResultJuliana, N. C. A., Juma, M. H., Heijmans, R., et al. (2020) · Pan African Medical Journal · doi:10.11604/pamj.2020.37.183.23367 · Cited by 18 · see citing works
Self-citationEstrade, C., & Sahli, R. (2014) · Journal of Clinical Microbiology · doi:10.1128/jcm.01950-14 · Cited by 9 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Earlier studies evaluated and compared the Roche Cobas, Abbott RealTime, and Anyplex II HPV28 assays to each other (13, 14, 17) and to other HPV DNA assays (11, 15, 18, 19).”
MethodPasquier, C., Sauné, K., Raymond, S., Boisneau, J., Courtade, M., & Izopet, J. (2017) · Diagnostic Microbiology and Infectious Disease · doi:10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2016.08.022 · Cited by 9 · cited 3× · see citing works
“In the Anyplex II HPV28 detection assay, the HPV load was categorized as either high (111), medium (11), or low (1), if the Cq value was #31.”
BackgroundMethodSignificance of “Not Detected but Amplified” Results by Real-Time PCR Method for HPV DNA Detection
Kim, T. S., Lim, M. S., Hong, Y. J., et al. (2016) · BioMed Research International · doi:10.1155/2016/5170419 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
Ouh, Y., Park, J. J., Kang, M., Kim, M., Song, J. Y., Shin, S. J., Shim, S., Yoo, H. J., Lee, M., Lee, S., et al. (2022) · Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research · doi:10.1111/jog.15078 · Cited by 2 · cited 2× · see citing works
“However, as shown by multiple previous studies, the Roche Cobas 4800 assay is known for having a relatively high sensitivity compared with other HPV assays (12, 13, 17).”
Method
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Yin, L., Zhao, Z., Wang, C., et al. (2024) · Microbiology Spectrum · doi:10.1128/spectrum.02253-24 · Cited by 26 · see citing works
Oštrbenk Valenčak, A., Cuschieri, K., Connor, L., Zore, A., Smrkolj, Š., & Poljak, M. (2024) · Journal of Clinical Virology · doi:10.1016/j.jcv.2023.105638 · Cited by 20 · see citing works
Nonboe, M. H., Napolitano, G. M., Schroll, J. B., et al. (2025) · Eurosurveillance · doi:10.2807/1560-7917.es.2025.30.27.2400820 · Cited by 16 · see citing works
Mafi, S., Theuillon, F., Meyer, S., Woillard, J.-B., Dupont, M., Rogez, S., Alain, S., & Hantz, S. (2025) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0320978 · Cited by 9 · see citing works
“This observation aligns with recent data reporting a slightly higher detection rate of multiple HPV infections using the Anyplex TM II HPV28 assay compared with the Allplex TM HPV28 assay [19].”
InfluentialBell, M., Baussano, I., Rol, M., Tenet, V., Heideman, D. A. M., Gheit, T., Caesbroeck, A. V., Vorsters, A., & Clifford, G. M. (2024) · Journal of Clinical Microbiology · doi:10.1128/jcm.01404-24 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
Self-citationNaegele, K., Bubendorf, L., Hirsch, H. H., & Leuzinger, K. (2024) · Journal of Medical Virology · doi:10.1002/jmv.29649 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
“23,24 27 In a previous study, we thoroughly evaluated the Anyplex II HPV28 assay by Seegene, optimizing both the pre ‐ analytical steps and nucleic acid extraction procedures in cervical swab and biopsy samples to enhance HPV detection and genotyping.”
MethodVerberckmoes, B., Vos, T. D., Maelegheer, K., et al. (2023) · BMC Women s Health · doi:10.1186/s12905-023-02691-8 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
“After adjustment of the cut-off for positivity to a less stringent one, the cases reported as negative neverthe-less demonstrated the presence of hr-HPV but with associated Cq values above the manufacturer’s cut-off [25].”
BackgroundSelf-citationQin, L., Li, D., Wang, Z., et al. (2024) · Frontiers in Public Health · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2024.1421774 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Prevalence of Human Papilloma Virus in Coquimbo, Chile
Farias, C., Peñaloza, M. J., Acuña, D., Flores, C., & Bernal, G. (2025) · Cancer Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.canep.2025.102757 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Godoy, L. R., El-Zein, M., Padalko, E. Y., Verberckmoes, B., Eenooghe, B. V., Vermandere, H., Dias, S., Gama, A., Vega, B., Neira, V. A., et al. (2025) · Journal of Clinical Microbiology · doi:10.1128/jcm.00200-25 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
“Details of the ELEVATE study design and data collection procedures were previously reported (12).”
Self-citationHathaway, C., Brown, E. R., Cherne, S., et al. (2025) · JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute · doi:10.1093/jnci/djaf336 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
Nkwinika, V. V., Amissah, K. A., Rakgole, J. N., et al. (2025) · International Journal of Molecular Sciences · doi:10.3390/ijms26157450 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
“This improves diagnostic specificity and risk stratification compared to DNA-based assays, which may detect transient and clinically insignificant infections [5,8–10].”
InfluentialBose, S., Mandal, R., Sengupta, S., Dutta, S., Abraham, P., Muwonge, R., Lucas, E., Panda, C., Palaniraja, S., Rol, M., et al. (2026) · BMJ Global Health · doi:10.1136/bmjgh-2025-021707 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Bazmi, H., Asghari, A. A., Jalali, M. B., et al. (2025) · BMC Research Notes · doi:10.1186/s13104-025-07401-1 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Prevalence of Human Papillomavirus in Arica and Antofagasta, in the north of Chile
Acuña, M. J., Mancilla, E., Acuña, D., & Bernal, G. (2025) · Cancer Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.canep.2025.102913 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Bai, M., Li, Y., Gao, Q., et al. (2025) · Virology Journal · doi:10.1186/s12985-025-02999-x · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Godoy, L. R., El‐Zein, M., Cools, P., Padalko, E. Y., Verberckmoes, B., Degomme, O., Vermandere, H., Mühr, L. S. A., Stosic, M. S., Franco, E. L., et al. (2025) · Journal of Medical Virology · doi:10.1002/jmv.70668
“We used data from the ELEVATE (EarLy dEtection of cerVical cAncer in hard ‐ to ‐ reach populations of women through portable and point ‐ of ‐ care HPV Testing) study, the details of which have been previously described [13, 14].”
Self-citationOral HPV and Dental Profiles in Mothers and Youth with or without HIVPreprint
Kumar, A., Peter, O., Osagie, E., et al. (2026) · medRxiv · doi:10.64898/2026.01.05.26343463
“DNA from oral rinse samples was extracted with the Zymo Quick-DNA Miniprep Kit and tested with the Seegene Allplex HPV28 assay, detecting 19 high-risk and 9 low-risk genotypes (Bell et al. 2023).”
Expanding HPV-Related Multiphenotypic Sinonasal Carcinoma Morphologic and Genotyping Profile
de Paiva, J. P. G., Rangel, A. L. C. A., de Araújo, J. E. S., et al. (2026) · The American Journal of Surgical Pathology · doi:10.1097/pas.0000000000002526
Heller, K. B., Mohamed, J. S., Cherne, S., Onono, M. A., Bukusi, E. A., Njoroge, B. W., Kimanthi, S., Hassan, R., Rechkina, E. A., McClelland, R. S., et al. (2026) · Journal of Virological Methods · doi:10.1016/j.jviromet.2026.115395
Cárcamo, H. K. S., & Bernal, G. (2026) · Diagnostic Microbiology and Infectious Disease · doi:10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2026.117451 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Oral HPV Dynamics in MSM Living with HIV in the Nine-Valent HPV Vaccination Era
Zulian, V., Sanctis, M. D., Pauciullo, S., et al. (2026) · Vaccines · doi:10.3390/vaccines14070589
“The assay detects 28 For viral load proxy analyses, genotype-specific Ct values were normalized using the assay internal control, beta-globin housekeeping gene, to derive ∆ Ct values (Ct_HPV– Ct_internal control) [27].”
- Authors
- Bell, M., Verberckmoes, B., Devolder, J., Vermandere, H., Degomme, O., Guimarães, Y. M., Godoy, L. R., Ambrosino, E., Cools, P., & Padalko, E.
- Affiliations
- Ghent University (BE)
- Ghent University Hospital (BE)
- Hospital de Câncer de Barretos (BR)
- Maastricht University (NL)
- Corresponding author
- Vermandere, Heleen
- ORCID
- Venue
- Microbiology Spectrum
- Publisher
- American Society for Microbiology
- Published
- 2023-08-17
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- e0008123-e0008123
- ISSN
- 2165-0497 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC10433804
- OpenAlex
- W4379598348
- Semantic Scholar
- ddd6437f9c0c53fd20c0eb00396343b0c3c1034a
- Cited by
- 22
- References
- 24
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 1
- FWCI
- 3.67
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Microbiology Spectrum (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Research Publications (Maastricht University) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Ghent University Academic Bibliography (Ghent University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- EC | Horizon 2020 Framework Programme (825747)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Cervical Cancer and HPV Research
- Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Microbiology › Reproductive tract infections research
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Clinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control
- Keywords
- human papillomavirus, high-risk HPV detection, HPV genotyping, self-collected samples, assay comparison, diagnostic performance
- MeSH terms
- Human Papillomavirus Viruses, Female, Genotype, Humans, Sensitivity and Specificity, Molecular Diagnostic Techniques, Papillomaviridae, Papillomavirus Infections, Alphapapillomavirus
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-16.
Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-16.
Cited sources are checked by gpt-6-sol.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
