ArticlePloS one2026
Performance evaluation of a novel fully-automated molecular diagnostics system Molecision R8.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the functionality of key modules of a novel fully-automated molecular diagnostics system Molecision R8 and the performance of the integrated system.
methodsThe nucleic acid extraction and PCR detection modules were evaluated using HBV DNA assay through precision and comparison with Molecision MP-32 and HongShi SLAN-96, respectively. Instrument comparison of R8 with an open system was conducted using Molecision HBV DNA and Chlamydia trachomatis/Ureaplasma urealyticum/Neisseria gonorrhoeae (CT/UU/NG) triplex assays. Systemic comparison of R8 and combined reagents with Sansure system were conducted on HBV DNA, CT, UU, and NG assays of their own.
resultsIn modular evaluation, the imprecision of both modules was all below 5% and Passing-Bablok (PB) regression and Bland-Altman (BA) analysis showed closeness to y = x and biases below 0.15 lg IU/mL. Instrument comparison obtained a regression equation of y = 0.982x + 0.084 and a bias of 0.05 lg IU/mL for HBV DNA detection in serum and agreement rates all above 96.5% for CT, UU and NG detection in genital tract samples. In the systemic comparison, the regression equation was y = 1.024x + 0.096 and the bias was 0 lg IU/mL for HBV DNA. For CT, UU and NG, the agreement rates were also all larger than 96.5%.
conclusionsAnalytical performance of Molecision R8 was superior or comparable to commercial nucleic acid purification and PCR systems. Molecision R8 alone or combined with related reagents are robust in measuring serum and genital tract samples. Overall, Molecision R8 holds strong promise for clinical use.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.