Detection Rate Analysis for Multiple Respiratory Viruses: Methodologies, Challenges, and Future Directions for Research and Drug Development

Abstract

This article provides a comprehensive analysis of detection rates for co-circulating respiratory viruses, a critical concern for researchers and drug development professionals. It explores the foundational epidemiology and evolving surveillance landscape post-pandemic, detailing the performance of various diagnostic methodologies from sampling to multiplex PCR. The content addresses key challenges in data interpretation, co-infections, and assay optimization, and offers a comparative validation of emerging technologies, including machine learning and environmental risk models. By synthesizing current data and trends, this review aims to inform strategic decisions in public health planning, assay development, and therapeutic targeting.

The Evolving Landscape of Respiratory Virus Epidemiology and Surveillance

Post-Pandemic Shifts in Viral Circulation and Seasonality

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic and the associated non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) constituted a global natural experiment, profoundly disrupting the long-established circulation patterns of endemic respiratory viruses [1]. While sharp declines in the activity of most respiratory viruses were universally observed immediately following the pandemic's onset, their recovery trajectories have exhibited significant variation [1] [2]. This guide provides a comparative analysis of these post-pandemic shifts, framing the discussion within the broader context of detection rate analysis for multiple respiratory viruses. For researchers and drug development professionals, understanding these divergent patterns is critical for refining surveillance models, anticipating future outbreaks, and developing targeted interventions.

Comparative Analysis of Post-Pandemic Viral Resurgence

The recovery of endemic respiratory viruses has not been uniform. The extent of disruption and the time required to return to pre-pandemic patterns appear to be influenced by a virus's characteristic seasonality and its degree of circulation overlap with SARS-CoV-2 [1]. The following table synthesizes findings from multiple surveillance studies to compare the resurgence dynamics of common respiratory viruses.

Table 1: Comparative Post-Pandemic Resurgence Dynamics of Respiratory Viruses

Virus / Virus Group	Pre-Pandemic Seasonal Pattern	Key Post-Pandemic Shift Observed	Time to Normalize (Post-Emergence)	Key Supporting Data
Influenza A (FLUA)	Winter (Dec-Feb) [1]	Transition to a semiannual pattern; protracted resurgence; high-severity season in 2024/2025 [1] [3]	>4 seasons; normalized in 2024 [1]	Est. 82 million illnesses, 1.3M hospitalizations, 130,000 deaths in 2024/25 US season [3]
Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV)	Winter (Dec-Feb) [1]	Significant decline in positivity; off-season summer surge in 2021; prolonged circulation [1] [4]	Protracted resurgence; timing normalized within 2 seasons for peak displacement [1]	Steep decline in infant hospitalizations in 2024 linked to new immunizations [5]
Human Metapneumovirus (HMPV) & Parainfluenza 3 (PIV3)	Spring (Mar-Jun) [1]	Resilient; quick return to pre-pandemic positivity levels [1]	Normalized within 2 seasons [1]	Classified as "resilient" viruses in interrupted time series analysis [1]
Rhinovirus/Enterovirus (HRVs/ENTERO)	Year-round (ENTERO: late summer/fall peak) [1] [2]	Resilient; less affected by NPIs; quick recovery [1]	Rapid return to pre-pandemic patterns [1]	Detection rates showed strong negative correlation with influenza viruses pre-pandemic [6]
Adenovirus (ADV)	Year-round [1]	Resilient; no distinct seasonal pattern pre- or post-pandemic [1] [2]	Rapid return to pre-pandemic patterns [1]	Positivity rates in children aged 2-5 years were highest at 4.33% [2]

A key insight from longitudinal immunoepidemiologic surveillance, such as the PREMISE study, is that NPIs led to a decrease in population immunity to common respiratory pathogens in children, which in turn drove the large, post-pandemic rebound of these diseases [4].

Detailed Experimental Protocols for Viral Detection and Analysis

Understanding the data on viral shifts requires an examination of the methodologies that generated it. The following section details key experimental protocols from cited studies.

Protocol 1: Laboratory-Based Etiological Study for Virus-Virus Interaction

This protocol is derived from a prospective study designed to quantitatively evaluate interactions between respiratory viruses [6].

• Objective: To systematically detect a wide range of respiratory viruses in patients with acute respiratory infections (ARI) and statistically analyze correlations and interactions between them.
• Patient Enrollment: 14,426 adult outpatients with ARI were enrolled in Beijing, China, between 2005 and 2015 [6].
• Sample Collection: Nasal and throat swabs were collected from each enrolled patient.
• Pathogen Detection:
  • Method: Molecular tests (not specified, but typically PCR-based multiplex assays).
  • Targets: All 18 common respiratory viruses were simultaneously tested for each sample.
• Data Analysis:
  • Correlation Analysis: Spearman’s rank correlation test was used to assess virus-virus correlations based on detection rates over time.
  • Modeling for Confounding Factors: A vector autoregressive model was employed to adjust for confounding factors and characterize virus interactions.
  • Spectral Analysis: The wavelet method was used to analyze the periodicity of virus detections.

Protocol 2: Analysis of Viral Seasonality Disruption and Recovery

This protocol outlines the methodology for assessing the impact of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic on endemic virus circulation patterns [1].

• Objective: To analyze disruptions in respiratory virus positivity and peak timing following the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 and track their recovery to pre-pandemic patterns.
• Data Source Construction:
  • Source: Respiratory pathogen test results from nasopharyngeal specimens from the Cleveland Clinic health system (29 December 2014 to 5 May 2024).
  • Inclusion Criteria: Only nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) results were included. Antigen tests and viral cultures were excluded.
  • Data Processing: Duplicate results from patients with multiple samples tested <30 days apart were removed.
• Statistical Analysis:
  • Interrupted Time Series (ITS) Analysis: Used to evaluate trends in percentage positivity before and after the pandemic onset (9 March 2020). The analysis excluded the first four quarters post-introduction to prevent skewing from low virus circulation and testing.
  • Wavelet Analysis: A Morlet wavelet was used to assess virus periodic cycles over time, revealing how periodic components changed. Weekly positive cases were logarithm-transformed for analysis.
  • Median Regression: Employed to assess peak shifts for winter and spring viruses between the pre-pandemic period and subsequent seasons.

Protocol 3: Immunoepidemiologic Surveillance for Population Immunity

The PREMISE study protocol focuses on understanding the immunologic drivers behind viral resurgence [4].

• Objective: To document the rebound of endemic respiratory viruses by measuring population immunity and infection rates in children following the pandemic.
• Study Design: A longitudinal, multicenter clinical research study.
• Cohort: Children younger than 10 years old, enrolled and followed for over a year.
• Sampling:
  • Blood Sampling: Repeat blood sampling was conducted to determine pathogen-specific immunity (likely through antibody titers).
  • Respiratory Sampling: Respiratory samples were collected during illness episodes to confirm active infections.
• Pathogen Testing: Samples were tested for a broad panel of common and emerging respiratory viruses, including RSV, influenza, and enterovirus D68 (EV-D68).
• Data Application: The immunologic and infection data were used to recreate past circulation patterns and model future outbreaks with greater accuracy.

The following workflow diagram visualizes the key stages of the PREMISE study protocol.

Diagram 1: PREMISE Study Workflow

Mechanisms of Viral Interference

The phenomenon of viral interference, where infection with one virus inhibits the replication or spread of another, has been proposed as a key mechanism explaining some post-pandemic circulation shifts [3]. A prominent hypothesis from the 2024/2025 season suggested that a severe influenza epidemic may have suppressed the winter SARS-CoV-2 wave through interferon-mediated mechanisms [3].

In vitro studies provide evidence for this: infection with influenza A (particularly A/H3N2) in human airway epithelial models elicits a robust interferon response, which in turn interferes with SARS-CoV-2 replication. This interference was shown to be reversible by the antiviral drug oseltamivir, which suppresses influenza replication [3].

The following diagram illustrates this proposed interferon-mediated interference pathway.

Diagram 2: Interferon-Mediated Viral Interference

The Scientist's Toolkit: Key Research Reagent Solutions

The following table details essential materials and reagents used in the featured studies for the detection, analysis, and surveillance of respiratory viruses.

Table 2: Key Research Reagents and Materials for Respiratory Virus Surveillance

Research Reagent / Material	Function / Application	Example Use Case in Featured Studies
Nasopharyngeal Swabs	Collection of respiratory epithelial cells and secretions from the nasopharynx, the optimal site for detecting many respiratory viruses.	Primary sample collection method for all major cited studies [6] [1] [2].
Nucleic Acid Amplification Test (NAAT) Kits	Molecular detection of viral RNA/DNA with high sensitivity and specificity. Allows for multiplexing to detect multiple pathogens in a single reaction.	Used for pathogen detection in all laboratory-based studies; the preferred method over antigen tests or culture [1] [4].
Colloidal Gold-Based Assays	Rapid immunochromatographic tests for detecting viral antigens; typically used for quick, point-of-care diagnosis but less sensitive than NAATs.	Used to detect ADV, FluA, FluB, and RSV antigens in a large-scale pediatric study [2].
Virus Transport Media (VTM)	A medium designed to preserve the viability of viruses during transport and storage of swab samples prior to testing.	Implied in all studies involving sample collection and transport for laboratory testing.
PCR Reagents (Primers/Probes, Master Mix)	Essential components for reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) and quantitative PCR (qPCR), the gold standard for viral detection and quantification.	The foundational technology behind NAATs used in the cited etiological and surveillance studies [6] [1].
Serological Assay Kits (e.g., ELISA)	Detect virus-specific antibodies (IgG, IgM) in serum or plasma to determine past infection and immune status.	Used in the PREMISE study for repeated blood sampling to assess population immunity [4].
Air Quality & Meteorological Data	Environmental parameters (e.g., NO₂, PM2.5, temperature, humidity) used as input features for predictive machine learning models of virus risk.	Integrated into a random forest-based risk prediction model to enhance accuracy [7].

The landscape of respiratory viral infections has undergone a significant transformation since the COVID-19 pandemic, establishing a new paradigm of cocirculation for multiple pathogens including SARS-CoV-2, influenza, and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV). For researchers and drug development professionals, understanding the current burden and intricate temporal patterns of these viruses is critical for advancing diagnostic technologies, therapeutic interventions, and public health strategies. The post-pandemic era has created a complex environment for viral co-circulation, necessitating sophisticated detection rate analyses to disentangle the contributions of individual pathogens to overall respiratory disease burden. This comparison guide provides a comprehensive analysis of the current epidemiological landscape, detection methodologies, and experimental protocols essential for research and development in this evolving field. By synthesizing the most current surveillance data and methodological approaches, this guide serves as a foundational resource for scientists navigating the complexities of respiratory virus research in a multi-pathogen environment.

Current Epidemiological Burden and Cocirculation Dynamics

Comparative Burden of Major Respiratory Viruses

Table 1: Comparative Burden of Respiratory Viruses (2024-2025 Season)

Virus	Peak Hospitalization Rate (per 100,000)	Test Positivity Rate (%)	High-Risk Populations	Seasonal Pattern
COVID-19	3.8-9.5 (projected 2025-2026) [8]	38% (post-pandemic period) [9]	Older adults (65+), immunocompromised	Year-round with winter peaks [8]
Influenza	14 (2024-2025 peak) [10]	30%+ (2024-2025) [10]	Children, elderly, chronically ill	Typically Dec-Feb [8] [11]
RSV	Similar to 2024-2025 (projected) [8]	Significant co-circulation [9]	Infants, young children, older adults	Late Dec-Jan (varies regionally) [8]
HMPV	N/A	>6% (early 2025) [10]	Young children, elderly, immunocompromised	Winter/Spring
Rhinovirus/Enterovirus	N/A	Stable across all periods [9]	General population	Year-round

Temporal Cocirculation Patterns

Analysis of emergency department visit data reveals distinct temporal patterns in respiratory virus circulation. RSV epidemics frequently reach peak volume before influenza epidemics across the United States, with this pattern observed in 77.0% of analyzed state-ILI seasons (114 out of 148 seasons). The median time difference between peaks of RSV and peaks of influenza was +3.0 weeks (range: -8, +10 weeks) [11]. This temporal separation has significant implications for healthcare resource allocation and timing of preventive measures.

The COVID-19 pandemic notably altered viral co-infection dynamics, with effects lasting into the post-COVID-19 period. Specifically, a marked decrease in influenza A circulation was observed initially, while RSV epidemiology remained relatively stable, and significant co-circulation of rhinovirus/enterovirus with SARS-CoV-2 persisted [9]. The transition of SARS-CoV-2 from pandemic to endemic phase has created a complex environment for viral co-circulation, encompassing not only various SARS-CoV-2 variants but also other respiratory pathogens [9].

Diagram 1: Respiratory Virus Research Workflow

Detection Rate Analysis: Methodologies and Experimental Protocols

Advanced Detection Technologies

Table 2: Comparison of Respiratory Virus Detection Methods

Methodology	Pathogens Detected	Throughput	Time to Result	Applications
Multiplex qPCR/LAMP	17-22 pathogens simultaneously [9] [10]	Medium-High	1-4 hours	Clinical diagnostics, outbreak investigation
Point-of-Care Tests	Flu, COVID-19, RSV [10]	Low	<30 minutes	Rapid screening, decentralized testing
Next-Generation Sequencing	Unknown/unexpected pathogens [10]	Low	24-72 hours	Novel pathogen discovery, surveillance
CRISPR-Based Diagnostics	Target-specific pathogens [10]	Low-Medium	<1 hour	Rapid detection, field deployment
Syndromic Panels	Multiple respiratory targets [10]	High	1-2 hours	Comprehensive diagnostic profiling

Detailed Experimental Protocol: Multiplex PCR for Respiratory Pathogen Detection

Sample Collection and Processing

• Sample Collection: Collect nasopharyngeal swabs using Copan Universal Transport Medium (UTM) system. Ensure samples are collected during the acute symptomatic phase for optimal viral load [9].

• Storage and Transport: Store samples at +4°C until delivery to the laboratory. For long-term storage, preserve aliquots at -80°C [9].

• Nucleic Acid Extraction: Use 300 μL of each prepared sample for molecular biology analyses. Automated nucleic acid extraction systems are recommended for consistency and to minimize cross-contamination.

Multiplex PCR Amplification

For the FilmArray RP2.1 Plus system (bioMérieux Italia S.p.A.):

• Utilize the fully automated multiplex PCR assay designed to detect 17 viral respiratory pathogens and four bacterial species [9].
• Follow manufacturer's protocols for sample loading and instrument operation.
• The system integrates sample preparation, amplification, detection, and analysis in a single platform.

For the QIAstat-Dx Respiratory SARS-CoV-2 Panel (QIAGEN S.r.l):

• Perform qualitative molecular testing using the QIAstat-Dx Analyzer 1.0 [9].
• The system integrates nucleic acid extraction with real-time multiplex PCR detection.
• This method was particularly implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic to expand testing capacity and ensure timely processing of high volumes of clinical samples [9].

Data Analysis and Interpretation

• Signal Detection: Analyze amplification curves for each target pathogen.
• Result Interpretation: Use built-in software algorithms to determine positive/negative results based on predetermined cycle threshold (Ct) values.
• Quality Control: Include appropriate positive and negative controls in each run to ensure assay validity.

Diagram 2: Respiratory Virus Signaling and Detection Pathways

Research Reagent Solutions for Respiratory Virus Detection

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for Respiratory Virus Detection

Reagent Category	Specific Products	Function/Application	Performance Characteristics
Nucleic Acid Extraction Kits	Silica-membrane based kits	Isolation of viral RNA/DNA from clinical samples	High purity, compatibility with downstream applications
PCR Master Mixes	Lyophilization-ready multiplex mixes [10]	Simultaneous detection of multiple targets	Room-temperature stability, high sensitivity and specificity
Enzyme Systems	Reverse transcriptases, DNA polymerases	Nucleic acid amplification	High processivity, thermal stability, fidelity
Probe Systems	Hydrolysis (TaqMan) probes, molecular beacons	Specific target detection during amplification	Minimal background, high signal-to-noise ratio
CRISPR Enzymes	Cas12, Cas13 proteins [10]	Sequence-specific detection and signal amplification	High specificity, collateral activity for signal generation
Antibody Reagents	High-sensitivity paired antibodies [10]	Lateral flow and ELISA-based detection	Low cross-reactivity, high affinity for target antigens
NGS Library Prep Kits	Ambient-temperature stable kits [10]	Sample preparation for sequencing	Simplified logistics, high sensitivity and reproducibility

Comparative Analysis of Detection Performance

Analytical Sensitivity and Specificity

Multiplex PCR platforms demonstrate exceptional performance characteristics for respiratory virus detection. The FilmArray RP2.1 Plus and QIAstat-Dx Respiratory SARS-CoV-2 Panel enable simultaneous identification of multiple respiratory viruses and bacteria, offering rapid and efficient detection in patient specimens with enhanced sensitivity and specificity compared to traditional methods [9]. These advanced syndromic molecular panels have become the standard for simultaneous detection of multiple viruses, including emerging pathogens like HMPV and novel coronaviruses [10].

The implementation of rapid molecular testing has notably improved detection capabilities by allowing simultaneous identification of multiple pathogens, enhancing sensitivity and specificity, reducing time to positivity, and ultimately expediting clinical treatment [9]. This is particularly valuable in the context of co-infections involving SARS-CoV-2 and other respiratory viruses, which may alter clinical presentation and complicate diagnosis and treatment [9].

Temporal Changes in Detection Rates

Analysis of detection rates across pre-, during-, and post-COVID-19 periods reveals significant shifts in respiratory virus prevalence. In the pre-COVID-19 period, the most prevalent virus was influenza A (47.5%, 47/99), followed by human rhinovirus (19.2%, 19/99) [9]. During the COVID-19 pandemic, SARS-CoV-2 was the most prevalent (64.9%, 290/447), before decreasing to 38% (92/244) after the pandemic, while influenza A's positivity prevalence increased to 14.3% (35/244) [9]. Rhinovirus/enterovirus remained relatively stable throughout all periods, demonstrating consistent circulation patterns despite pandemic-related disruptions [9].

These findings highlight the complex interplay between respiratory viruses and the importance of continuous surveillance and detection rate analysis to inform public health responses and therapeutic development.

The increasing complexity of global public health threats, particularly from respiratory viruses, has driven the evolution from siloed surveillance systems toward integrated models that combine multiple data streams. These integrated frameworks leverage complementary strengths to provide a more comprehensive understanding of pathogen dynamics, enabling more effective public health responses. The COVID-19 pandemic served as a catalyst for this transformation, demonstrating the critical need for systems capable of real-time monitoring and forecasting [12]. Today, integrated surveillance represents a cornerstone of modern epidemic intelligence, combining traditional reporting with novel data sources and advanced analytical approaches.

The fundamental premise of integrated surveillance lies in its ability to triangulate evidence from various sources, including healthcare facilities, laboratory networks, environmental sampling, and digital resources. This multi-faceted approach helps overcome the limitations inherent in any single data source. As public health agencies worldwide strive to strengthen their preparedness, understanding the composition, performance, and implementation requirements of these integrated models has become essential for researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals working to mitigate the impact of respiratory viruses.

Comparative Analysis of Surveillance System Components

Integrated surveillance systems derive their strength from combining diverse data sources, each contributing unique insights into pathogen activity. The table below summarizes the primary components used in contemporary public health surveillance, their core functions, and key performance characteristics.

Table 1: Components of Integrated Surveillance Systems for Respiratory Viruses

Surveillance Component	Data Source & Function	Key Performance Attributes	Example Applications
Syndromic Surveillance	Emergency department visits, primary care consultations (e.g., ILI, ARI metrics) [13].	High timeliness, broad representativeness, monitors syndromes before confirmation [14].	CDC's National Syndromic Surveillance Program uses ED data for real-time outbreak detection [15].
Laboratory-Based Surveillance	Pathogen-specific testing (e.g., PCR, multiplex assays) from clinics and hospitals [16].	High specificity, confirms etiology, tracks variants and antiviral resistance [14].	Multiplex PCR panels detecting 19+ respiratory viruses [16]; WHO GISRS for influenza [17].
Wastewater Surveillance	Municipal wastewater systems detecting viral RNA shed by populations [18] [13].	Non-biased sampling, captures symptomatic and asymptomatic infections, provides early warning [13].	SARS-CoV-2, influenza A, and RSV monitoring in Switzerland [18] and by the CDC [13].
Event-Based Surveillance	Digital news sources, social media, and other open-source information [19].	Very high timeliness, can signal outbreaks before formal reporting, broad global coverage [17].	WHO's EIOS system uses AI to analyze public data for early threat detection [19].
Genomic Surveillance	Genetic sequencing of viral samples from patients and the environment.	High specificity, tracks transmission chains and viral evolution, identifies new variants.	Not explicitly detailed in search results but implied as a critical component of modern surveillance.

Quantitative Performance Evaluation of Integrated Frameworks

Evaluating the effectiveness of surveillance systems requires assessing them against standardized attributes. A 2025 study on influenza surveillance in New Zealand provides a robust framework for this, ranking systems based on key attributes essential for AI/ML training and short-term forecasting [14]. The following tables adapt these findings to illustrate how different surveillance components serve distinct yet complementary roles in an integrated model.

Table 2: Usefulness of Surveillance System Components for AI/ML Model Training

Surveillance Component	Historical Data	Sensitivity	Specificity	Completeness	Overall Training Usefulness
Severe Acute Respiratory Infection (SARI) Surveillance	High	High	High	High	High
National Hospitalization Datasets	High	Moderate	High	High	High
Laboratory Surveillance	Moderately High	High	High	Moderate	Moderately High
Community Cohort Studies	Moderately High	High	High	Moderate	Moderately High
Syndromic Surveillance (e.g., HealthLine)	Moderately High	Moderately Low	Moderately Low	Moderately Low	Moderate

Table 3: Usefulness of Surveillance System Components for Short-Term (1-4 week) Forecasting

Surveillance Component	Timeliness	Robustness	Sensitivity	Specificity	Overall Forecasting Usefulness
Syndromic Surveillance (e.g., HealthLine)	High	Moderate	Moderately Low	Moderately Low	High
Wastewater Surveillance	High	Moderate	High	High	High
Event-Based Surveillance (e.g., EIOS)	High	Moderate	Moderate	Moderate	High
Community Cohort Studies	Moderately High	Moderate	High	High	Moderately High
Severe Acute Respiratory Infection (SARI) Surveillance	Moderate	High	High	High	Moderately High

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies in Action

Protocol 1: Multiplex PCR for Pathogen Detection and Temporal Trend Analysis

Objective: To identify respiratory pathogens in patients with Lower Respiratory Tract Infections (LRTI) and assess changes in virus distribution during and after the COVID-19 pandemic across different age groups [16].

Methodology Details:

• Sample Collection: A retrospective analysis of 748 nasopharyngeal swab samples (one per patient) collected between March 2020 and November 2024 [16].
• Laboratory Analysis: Detection was performed using the QIAstat-Dx Respiratory Panel Test, a multiplex real-time PCR assay that simultaneously detects 19 viral and 3 bacterial targets, including SARS-CoV-2, influenza viruses, RSV, and Rhinovirus/Enterovirus [16].
• Statistical Analysis: Descriptive statistics summarized demographic data and viral positivity rates. Chi-square tests assessed associations between categorical variables. Multivariate logistic regression identified independent predictors of viral positivity, with age, gender, and time period as covariates [16].
• Time-Series Analysis: The Autoregressive Integrated Moving Average (ARIMA) model was applied to monthly case counts from January 2020 to December 2024. Separate models were built for SARS-CoV-2, Rhinovirus/Enterovirus, and RSV, with optimal parameters selected using the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC). Forecasts for January 2025–December 2027 included point estimates and 95% confidence intervals [16].

Key Findings: The study found a significantly higher viral detection rate in pediatric patients (71.5%) compared to adults (40%). SARS-CoV-2 dominated during the pandemic (65.5% of positive cases), while post-pandemic circulation shifted notably toward Rhinovirus/Enterovirus (71.5% of positive samples) [16].

Protocol 2: Integrated Surveillance with Wastewater Correlation

Objective: To describe recent epidemiological trends of SARS-CoV-2, influenza, and RSV using a tripartite integrated surveillance system and to correlate viral loads in wastewater with hospitalizations [18].

Methodology Details:

• Data Streams:
  • Primary Care Surveillance: The Sentinella network provided data on consultations for influenza-like illness (ILI).
  • Hospital-Based Surveillance: Geneva University Hospitals (HUG) provided data on severe acute respiratory infections (SARI) and hospitalizations.
  • Wastewater Surveillance: The Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology (Eawag) conducted wastewater sampling and measured the mean normalized viral load for SARS-CoV-2, influenza, and RSV [18].
• Analysis: Temporal trends in all three data streams were analyzed between July 2022 and April 2025. Kendall’s rank correlation (τ) was used to assess the association between wastewater viral RNA loads and hospitalizations for each virus between September 2024 and April 2025 [18].

Key Findings: The period from September 2024 to April 2025 marked the first extended winter season where SARS-CoV-2 activity remained consistently lower than influenza. Strong positive correlations were found between wastewater loads and hospitalizations for SARS-CoV-2 (τ=0.75), influenza A (τ=0.80), and RSV (τ=0.68) [18].

Protocol 3: Machine Learning for Respiratory Virus Risk Prediction

Objective: To develop a nationwide respiratory virus infection risk prediction model by integrating air quality, meteorological data, and pathogen detection data using a machine learning approach [7].

Methodology Details:

• Data Integration: The study integrated three data types collected from 31 regions in China between 2016 and 2021: 1) pathogen detection data (from clinical tests), 2) air quality indices (AQI, PM2.5, PM10, NO2, SO2, O3, CO), and 3) meteorological measurements (temperature, dew point, wind speed/direction) [7].
• Model and Training: A Chained Random Forest Classifier (CRFC) algorithm was used for multi-label classification to predict the presence of various respiratory viruses. The dataset of over 500,000 entries was split using Iterative Stratification to ensure even label distribution [7].
• Model Interpretation: The SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) framework was employed to interpret the model's predictions and determine the contribution of each feature [7].

Key Findings: The model demonstrated robust performance with an average overall accuracy of 0.76 and an average AUC score of 0.9. SHAP analysis revealed significant predictive contributions from age, NO2 levels, and meteorological conditions such as air temperature [7].

Visualization of Integrated Surveillance Workflows

Conceptual Framework for Integrated Respiratory Virus Surveillance

The following diagram illustrates the logical flow and integration of multiple data streams into a cohesive public health intelligence system.

Surveillance System Evaluation Workflow

This diagram outlines the logical process for evaluating the suitability of surveillance systems for specific applications like AI/ML forecasting.

Successful implementation and analysis of integrated surveillance models rely on a suite of specific reagents, software, and data tools. The following table details key resources cited in the experimental protocols.

Table 4: Essential Research Reagents and Resources for Integrated Surveillance

Tool/Resource	Type	Primary Function	Example Use Case
QIAstat-Dx Respiratory Panel [16]	Multiplex PCR Assay	Simultaneous detection of 19 viral and 3 bacterial respiratory pathogens from clinical samples.	Identifying etiological agents in LRTI patients and monitoring shifts in viral prevalence [16].
ARIMA Model [16]	Statistical Model / Algorithm	Time-series analysis and forecasting of future pathogen activity based on historical case data.	Predicting respiratory virus trends through 2027 using monthly case count data [16].
Chained Random Forest Classifier (CRFC) [7]	Machine Learning Algorithm	Multi-label classification for predicting infection risk by integrating clinical, environmental, and demographic data.	Developing a nationwide respiratory virus risk model in China [7].
SHAP (SHapley Additive exPlanations) [7]	Model Interpretation Framework	Interpreting complex ML models by quantifying the contribution of each input feature to the final prediction.	Identifying that age, NO2, and temperature were key drivers of the virus risk model [7].
EIOS (Epidemic Intelligence from Open Sources) [19]	Software Platform	AI-enhanced analysis of publicly available information (news, social media) for early threat detection.	WHO's global early warning system for public health threats [19].

Challenges and Future Directions

Despite their advanced capabilities, integrated surveillance models face significant challenges. Data quality and interoperability remain hurdles, as systems must harmonize data from disparate sources with varying formats, quality, and completeness [14] [20]. Workforce readiness is another critical issue; effective implementation requires a multidisciplinary workforce skilled not only in epidemiology but also in data science, programming, and informatics [12]. Furthermore, the deployment of AI tools must be accompanied by robust ethical frameworks to address equity, accountability, and data privacy concerns [20].

The future of integrated surveillance will be shaped by several key developments. The focus will shift toward enhanced interoperability and the creation of standardized, modular platforms that can seamlessly incorporate new data sources and analytical tools [19] [12]. Investment in workforce development is crucial to build capacity in data science and analytics within public health institutions, ensuring they can leverage these advanced technologies [15] [12]. Finally, the principle of collaborative surveillance will be emphasized, fostering partnerships across government, academia, and private sectors to create resilient, inclusive, and effective global public health systems [15] [12].

Respiratory viral infections continue to represent a significant global health burden, requiring precise detection and characterization for effective public health intervention and clinical management. The epidemiology and detection rates of these pathogens differ markedly between pediatric and adult populations, reflecting age-specific variations in immune response, exposure risk, and clinical presentation. The COVID-19 pandemic further complicated this landscape by altering traditional circulation patterns of respiratory viruses, with profound impacts on surveillance and detection methodologies [16] [21]. This comparative analysis synthesizes current evidence on detection rates across age groups, examines the methodological frameworks underlying these findings, and highlights essential reagents and tools that enable robust respiratory virus surveillance. Understanding these age-specific patterns is crucial for researchers, diagnosticians, and public health professionals working to optimize detection strategies and allocate resources effectively, particularly in anticipation of future respiratory seasons and potential pandemic threats.

Comparative Analysis of Detection Rates

Detection rates for respiratory viruses reveal consistent and significant disparities between pediatric and adult populations across multiple studies and geographical regions. The higher viral detection in children underscores their unique role in respiratory disease transmission and epidemiology.

Table 1: Comparative Detection Rates of Respiratory Viruses in Pediatric vs. Adult Populations

Pathogen	Pediatric Detection Rate	Adult Detection Rate	Study Details
Overall Respiratory Viruses	71.5% [16]	40.0% [16]	Multiplex PCR, 2020-2024
Overall Respiratory Viruses	78.5% (78.1% in children <1 year) [21]	Lower in older age groups [21]	Multiplex PCR, Winter 2023/24
Respiratory Pathogens (Any)	21.64% (Overall cohort) [22]	N/A	302,680 pediatric samples, 2019-2023
Influenza A (IAV)	Most common in adults (29.2% of positives) [21]	16.2% prevalence in adult study [23]	Winter 2023-2024
Adenovirus (ADV)	4.33% (Highest in 2-5 years) [22]	Lower detection in adults [21]	2019-2023
Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV)	4.37% (Highest in 0-2 years) [22]	4.4% prevalence in adult study [23]	2019-2023
Rhinovirus/Enterovirus (HRV/EV)	32% of positives (Highest in children 1-5 years) [21]	Common in adults post-pandemic [16]	Winter 2023/24

A study utilizing multiplex PCR testing from 2020-2024 demonstrated a stark contrast, with children showing a 71.5% viral detection rate compared to 40.0% in adults [16]. This pattern was confirmed in the 2023/24 season, where 78.5% of pediatric ARI cases tested positive for viruses, with the highest rate (78.1%) observed in infants under one year of age [21]. Multivariate analysis has identified pediatric age as a strong independent predictor of viral positivity, with an odds ratio of 3.68 (95% CI: 2.25–6.03) [16].

Beyond overall detection rates, specific pathogens exhibit distinct age-specific patterns. Rhinovirus (HRV) was the most frequently detected virus in children aged 1-5 years, representing 32% of positive cases in one study [21]. Influenza A (IAV), while also circulating in children, was the most prevalent virus in adults, accounting for 29.2% of positive cases in one cohort and 16.2% prevalence in another adult study [21] [23]. Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) shows the classic pattern of highest detection in young children (4.37% in children 0-2 years), though it still causes significant disease in adults (4.4% prevalence) [22] [23]. Adenovirus (ADV) detection peaks in preschool children aged 2-5 years (4.33%) [22].

Testing patterns themselves vary by age and setting, potentially influencing detection rates. Among adults with acute respiratory illnesses, RSV testing occurs significantly less frequently (2.4% of episodes) than influenza (5.8-15.1%) or SARS-CoV-2 (5.8-22.6%) testing [24]. This testing disparity is most pronounced in outpatient settings (0.3-1.4%) compared to emergency department (1.4-17.9%) or inpatient settings (9.5-27.5%) [24], suggesting substantial under-detection of RSV in adults, particularly in less severe cases.

Key Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

Robust experimental protocols are essential for obtaining accurate, comparable detection data across different populations and settings. The methodologies cited in comparative studies share common elements but also show important variations in sample collection, processing, and pathogen detection.

Sample Collection and Handling

Nasopharyngeal swabs represent the most common specimen type for respiratory virus detection across both pediatric and adult populations. Studies specify collection using sterile swabs which are then placed into viral transport media and transported under cold-chain conditions (2-8°C) for processing within 6 hours [25]. For molecular detection, samples are often aliquoted and preserved at -80°C until nucleic acid extraction can be performed [21]. The South Korean nationwide study utilized data from the National Emergency Department Information System (NEDIS), which collects real-time administrative and clinical data from all 411 emergency departments in South Korea, representing a particularly comprehensive surveillance approach [26].

Nucleic Acid Extraction and Detection Methods

Table 2: Key Molecular Detection Methods in Respiratory Virus Studies

Method	Target Pathogens	Platform/Example	Application in Cited Studies
Multiplex PCR Panels	19-23 respiratory pathogens including viruses and bacteria	QIAstat-Dx Respiratory SARS-CoV-2 Panel [16] [21]	Comprehensive pathogen detection, co-infection analysis
Rapid Molecular Tests	Influenza A/B, RSV, SARS-CoV-2	Xpert Xpress CoV-2/Flu/RSV plus (Cepheid) [21]	Rapid turnaround for major pathogens
Viral Antigen Detection	ADV, FluA, FluB, RSV	Colloidal gold-based immunoassays [22]	High-throughput screening
Custom PCR Assays	HRV/EV, hMPV, CoVs, PIV, AdV	Laboratory-developed methods [21]	Targeted detection, genotyping

Nucleic acid extraction is typically performed using automated systems such as the Tianlong automatic nucleic acid extractor [25]. For detection, multiplex real-time PCR assays have become the methodological gold standard, allowing simultaneous identification of multiple pathogens from a single sample. The QIAstat-Dx Respiratory SARS-CoV-2 Panel (Qiagen) detects 23 respiratory pathogens, including IAV, IBV, RSV, hMPV, HRV/enterovirus, human coronaviruses, parainfluenza viruses 1-4, adenovirus, bocavirus, and various bacterial targets [16] [21].

Some studies employ a tiered testing approach where samples are initially screened with rapid molecular tests like the Xpert Xpress CoV-2/Flu/RSV plus (Cepheid), which provides faster turnaround for major pathogens, followed by more comprehensive multiplex panels or custom PCR assays for further characterization [21]. For pathogen genotyping and detailed characterization, Sanger sequencing of conserved regions (e.g., 5' UTR or VP4/2 coding region for HRV/EV) is employed [21].

Data Analysis and Statistical Approaches

Comparative studies employ standardized statistical methods to analyze detection rates between populations. Chi-square tests are commonly used to assess significant differences in detection rates between age groups and for seasonal comparisons [22] [21]. Multivariate logistic regression analysis identifies independent predictors of viral positivity while controlling for covariates such as age, gender, and time period [16]. To examine viral interference and co-infection patterns, researchers compare observed versus expected coinfections using methods described by Wu et al., where the expected number is calculated as the product of the incidence of each virus multiplied by the total number of samples tested [21]. More advanced time-series analyses, including Autoregressive Integrated Moving Average (ARIMA) models, are employed to evaluate trends and forecast future respiratory virus activity [16].

Figure 1: Experimental Workflow for Comparative Detection Studies. This diagram illustrates the standard protocol for studies comparing respiratory virus detection rates between pediatric and adult cohorts, from patient presentation to final data analysis.

Research Reagent Solutions Toolkit

The consistent and accurate detection of respiratory viruses across age groups relies on a standardized set of research reagents and laboratory tools. The following table summarizes essential materials and their applications in respiratory virus surveillance research.

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Tools for Respiratory Virus Detection Studies

Category	Specific Examples	Function/Application
Sample Collection	Viral transport media (VTM), sterile nasopharyngeal swabs	Maintains pathogen viability during transport
Nucleic Acid Extraction	Tianlong automatic nucleic acid extractor, commercial extraction kits	Isolves viral RNA/DNA for downstream detection
Multiplex PCR Panels	QIAstat-Dx Respiratory Panel (Qiagen), Seegene Allplex RV	Simultaneous detection of multiple pathogens
Rapid Molecular Tests	Xpert Xpress CoV-2/Flu/RSV plus (Cepheid)	Rapid detection of major pathogens (<1 hour)
Single Pathogen Detection	Colloidal gold-based antigen tests (Innovation Biotechnology)	Point-of-care detection of specific viruses
Amplification Platforms	AFD4800 Real-Time PCR, MA-6000 Real-Time PCR	Nucleic acid amplification and detection
Genotyping Reagents	Custom primers for 5' UTR/VP4/VP2, sequencing kits	Pathogen characterization and strain identification
Data Analysis Tools	IBM SPSS Statistics v.27, R software v. 4.2	Statistical analysis and visualization

The QIAstat-Dx Respiratory SARS-CoV-2 Panel exemplifies modern syndromic testing platforms, enabling detection of 23 respiratory pathogens from a single sample [16] [21]. For rapid turnaround testing, the Xpert Xpress CoV-2/Flu/RSV plus (Cepheid) system provides results in approximately 45 minutes, making it valuable for clinical decision support [21]. Automated nucleic acid extraction systems like the Tianlong extractor ensure consistent RNA/DNA recovery across large sample sets [25]. For specialized characterization and investigation of emerging variants, custom laboratory-developed PCR assays and Sanger sequencing reagents enable genotyping and phylogenetic analysis [21].

Discussion and Future Directions

The consistent pattern of higher respiratory virus detection in pediatric populations compared to adults has important implications for research, public health planning, and clinical practice. These differences likely reflect both biological factors, such as the developing immune system in children, and epidemiological factors, including greater exposure risks in school and daycare settings. The finding that pediatric age is an independent predictor of viral positivity (OR: 3.68) underscores the fundamental differences in respiratory virus susceptibility across the age spectrum [16].

The COVID-19 pandemic has altered traditional respiratory virus epidemiology, with significant reductions in pediatric intussusception cases during social distancing periods strongly correlated with declines in respiratory virus transmission [26]. This natural experiment provides compelling evidence for the connection between respiratory viral infections and other medical conditions. As pandemic restrictions have eased, unusual patterns of viral resurgence have been observed, particularly in pediatric populations, highlighting the need for ongoing surveillance [22] [16].

Future research should focus on elucidating the mechanisms underlying age-specific detection differences, including mucosal immunity development and prior immunity effects. The infrequent testing for RSV in adults compared to other respiratory viruses represents a significant detection gap that may lead to underestimation of disease burden in this population [24]. Standardization of testing protocols across age groups and healthcare settings would facilitate more accurate comparative analyses and disease burden estimates.

The development of increasingly sophisticated multiplex PCR panels and rapid molecular tests will continue to enhance our ability to detect and characterize respiratory viruses across all age groups. These technological advances, combined with the growing understanding of age-specific detection patterns, will inform more effective public health interventions, vaccine development strategies, and clinical management approaches tailored to specific age-related risks and detection challenges.

The Impact of Global Travel and Climate on Virus Transmission Dynamics

The dynamics of virus transmission are increasingly influenced by two powerful, interconnected global forces: climate change and worldwide travel. For researchers and drug development professionals, understanding this synergy is critical for developing accurate detection assays, predicting outbreak trajectories, and designing effective countermeasures. Climate change alters the geographic range and intensity of viral circulation by affecting vector biology, virus stability, and host-environment interactions [27]. Concurrently, the global air travel network creates unprecedented pathways for pathogens to cross continents within hours, seeding outbreaks in new, immunologically naive populations [28]. This complex interplay is reshaping the global landscape of respiratory and vector-borne viral threats, demanding sophisticated, climate-informed surveillance and research strategies. This analysis examines the mechanistic effects of these drivers on transmission dynamics, providing a framework for detection rate analysis in a rapidly changing epidemiological context.

Current Landscape of Viral Outbreaks and Transmission Pathways

The contemporary global outbreak landscape reflects the direct impact of travel and climatic factors. A 2025 snapshot identified 102 distinct disease outbreaks across 66 countries, spanning respiratory, vector-borne, food/waterborne, and direct contact pathogens [29]. The following table summarizes key outbreaks and their primary transmission mechanisms, which are essential for understanding detection priorities.

Table 1: Major Global Viral Outbreaks and Transmission Dynamics (2025)

Virus/Disease	Primary Transmission Pathway	Affected Regions (2025)	Reported Scale (2025)
Influenza	Respiratory droplets	United States, Europe	~82 million illnesses, ~130,000 deaths (US) [3]
Chikungunya	Mosquito-borne (Aedes aegypti/albopictus)	Americas, Africa, Asia, Europe (40 countries) [30]	>400,000 cases, 155 deaths [27]
COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2)	Respiratory droplets/aerosols	Global, with variant-driven waves	~20.3 million cases, ~63,000 deaths (US) [3]
Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV)	Respiratory droplets	Global	~350,000 hospitalizations (US) [31]
Dengue	Mosquito-borne (Aedes aegypti/albopictus)	Bangladesh, Cuba, Philippines, others [32]	Widespread outbreaks in tropics/subtropics [27]
West Nile Virus	Mosquito-borne (Culex species)	Europe (14 countries)	718 cases (Italy alone) [27]

Analyzing Transmission Pathways for Detection

The pathways outlined in Table 1 have direct implications for detection protocol design:

• Respiratory viruses require surveillance of human respiratory samples, with seasonality modulated by temperature and humidity [33].
• Vector-borne viruses necessitate dual-track surveillance of both human cases and arthropod vectors, whose geographic range is expanding due to climate warming [27]. For example, the recent detection of Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus at 2,438 meters in Nepal demonstrates this altitudinal expansion [27].

The Role of Global Travel in Virus Dissemination

International air travel functions as a super-highway for rapid pathogen dispersal. Research confirms that higher international passenger flight volumes are significantly associated with increased rates of both influenza transmission and COVID-19 cases and mortality [28]. The diagram below illustrates how air travel networks catalyze global spread from regional epicenters.

Figure 1: Viral Dissemination Pathway via International Air Travel

Key Travel-Mediated Dissemination Mechanisms

• Accelerated Introduction to New Regions: The movement of viremic travelers is a documented source of viral introduction. Genomic sequencing confirmed that chikungunya's spread to the Caribbean Islands in 2013-2014 and subsequently to the continental U.S. was initiated by infected travelers [30]. A viremic individual can introduce a pathogen to a new region within the 4-12 day viremic window post-illness onset.

• Epicenter-Driven Spread: The origin of travel is a critical factor. Flights from Asia were linked to 21% higher flu transmission rates and 72% higher COVID-19 case rates compared to other regions, identifying Asia as a "critical epicentre for respiratory virus emergence and evolution" [28]. This is attributed to dense populations, human-livestock proximity, and ecological conditions favoring viral diversity.

• Pathogen-Specific Travel Dynamics: The impact of travel varies by pathogen characteristics. The link between flight volumes and COVID-19 was consistently stronger than for influenza, potentially due to SARS-CoV-2's longer incubation period (2-14 days vs 1-4 days) and significant asymptomatic transmission, enabling more unknowing infectious individuals to travel [28].

Climatic Influences on Viral Transmission Dynamics

Climate change is not a future threat but a present-day modifier of viral epidemics. Rising global temperatures, altered precipitation patterns, and increased frequency of extreme weather events are directly affecting virus stability, vector capacity, and host susceptibility.

Temperature Modulation of Epidemic Patterns

Mathematical modeling reveals that temperature increases significantly alter the intensity and seasonality of viral outbreaks. The SIRS (Susceptible-Infectious-Recovered-Susceptible) model has been employed to simulate the impact of incremental winter and summer temperature rises (2.5°C to 10°C) on influenza infection rates [33]. The results demonstrate that warming has long-lasting effects, disrupting established seasonal patterns for 5-6 years after the temperature signal ceases. Winter warming, in particular, lowers the peak-to-trough infection ratio, thereby reducing the intensity of epidemic fluctuations [33].

Table 2: Impact of Warming Scenarios on Influenza Infection Dynamics

Warming Scenario	Effect on Autumn Infections	Effect on Winter Infections	Long-Term Outcome (Steady State)
Single Winter (SW)	Initial decrease, then increase	Initial decrease, then variable	Return to baseline seasonal pattern
Continuous Winter (CW)	Decrease in second year	Significant decrease to lowest point	Slight decrease in total infections
Continuous Summer (CS)	Decrease in subsequent years	Increase in subsequent years	Slight decrease in total infections
Full Warming (SWS/CWS)	Driven by winter warming pattern	Driven by winter warming pattern	Greater reduction in total infections

Climate-Driven Vector Expansion and Viral Adaptation

For vector-borne viruses, climate change is redrawing the global risk map through two primary mechanisms: vector range expansion and viral evolution.

• Expansion of Competent Vector Habitats: Rising temperatures have expanded the optimal range for Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus mosquitoes (25-35°C), bringing diseases like chikungunya, dengue, and West Nile virus to new populations [30] [27]. This expansion is not just latitudinal but also altitudinal, as seen in Nepal [27]. Furthermore, higher temperatures accelerate mosquito development, shorten the extrinsic incubation period (EIP) of viruses within the mosquito, and lengthen transmission seasons [27].

• Viral Genetic Adaptation: As RNA viruses, pathogens like chikungunya can rapidly mutate under selective pressures. A point mutation (A226V) in the E1 envelope protein of the East, Central and South African (ECSA) genotype emerged during the 2005-2006 Réunion Island outbreak. This mutation significantly enhanced the virus's ability to be transmitted by Aedes albopictus mosquitoes, which were widespread on the island, facilitating a massive outbreak and demonstrating how viral evolution interacts with ecological opportunity [30].

Figure 2: Climate Change Effects on Vector-Borne Virus Transmission

Experimental Models for Studying Transmission Dynamics

To dissect the complex interactions governing virus transmission, researchers employ a suite of in vitro, in silico, and surveillance-based methodologies.

Viral Interference and Co-infection Models

The unexpected divergence of influenza and SARS-CoV-2 activity during the 2024/2025 winter—a severe flu season concurrent with a subdued COVID-19 wave—prompted investigation into viral interference. The following experimental protocol is used to elucidate these mechanisms:

Table 3: Experimental Protocol for Viral Interference Studies

Step	Methodology	Key Parameters & Reagents	Application/Outcome
1. Model System	Use human airway epithelial (HAE) cell cultures at air-liquid interface.	Primary HAE cells, specialized culture media.	Mimics human respiratory tract physiology.
2. Viral Infection	Infect cells with IAV (e.g., A/H3N2) first, followed by SARS-CoV-2 after a set interval (e.g., 24h).	Influenza A/H3N2, SARS-CoV-2 (e.g., NB.1.8.1 variant).	Models sequential co-infection scenario.
3. Interference Assessment	Quantify SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA (vRNA) via qRT-PCR and measure infectious viral titers via plaque assay.	qRT-PCR reagents, plaque assay reagents (agarose, cell lines).	Directly measures suppression of viral replication.
4. Mechanism Probe	Measure interferon (IFN) and interferon-stimulated gene (ISG) expression post-IAV infection.	ELISA kits for IFN-β, qPCR assays for ISGs (e.g., MX1, OAS).	Tests the innate immune-mediated interference hypothesis.
5. Antiviral Reversal	Treat IAV-infected cultures with Oseltamivir prior to SARS-CoV-2 challenge.	Oseltamivir (antiviral drug).	Confirms IAV replication is required for interference.

This protocol, based on the work of Gilbert-Girard et al. and Cheemarla et al., confirmed that influenza A virus interferes with SARS-CoV-2 replication by inducing a robust interferon response that SARS-CoV-2 alone does not significantly trigger. The interference was reversible by oseltamivir, which suppresses influenza replication [3].

Climate-Virus Modeling (SIRS Framework)

The SIRS model is a cornerstone for projecting how climate variables, particularly temperature, influence long-term epidemic trajectories.

• Model Structure: The SIRS framework simulates population transitions between Susceptible (S), Infectious (I), and Recovered (R) states, with recovered individuals eventually returning to the susceptible pool.
• Climate Integration: The key adaptation for climate studies is modifying the transmission rate (β) to be a function of time and temperature. This is often done using a cosine transform that incorporates a warming signal (ΔT) of defined magnitude (e.g., +2.5°C, +5°C) and duration [33].
• Output Analysis: The model outputs the number of infections over time under different warming scenarios, allowing researchers to quantify changes in peak incidence, epidemic duration, and seasonal patterns, as summarized in Table 2.

Essential Research Reagent Solutions

Research into transmission dynamics requires a specialized toolkit. The following table catalogues key reagents and their applications in the featured experiments.

Table 4: Research Reagent Solutions for Transmission Dynamics Studies

Research Reagent / Material	Function and Application	Example Use Case
Human Airway Epithelial (HAE) Cultures	Physiologically relevant in vitro model of the human respiratory tract.	Studying viral interference, co-infection dynamics, and innate immune responses [3].
qRT-PCR Assays & Reagents	Quantitative detection and quantification of viral RNA from clinical or cultured samples.	Measuring viral load (e.g., SARS-CoV-2 suppression in co-infection studies) and viral genotype identification [3].
Plaque Assay Reagents	Quantification of infectious viral particles via plaque formation in cell monolayers.	Titrating infectious virus from co-infection experiments or environmental samples [3].
Cytokine ELISA Kits (e.g., IFN-β)	Sensitive measurement of specific immune signaling proteins in cell supernatants or serum.	Probing mechanisms of viral interference by quantifying interferon response [3].
Specific Antivirals (e.g., Oseltamivir)	Pharmacological inhibitors of specific viral replication cycles.	Mechanistic probing to confirm the role of a specific virus in an observed phenomenon [3].
SIRS Model Parameters	Mathematical constants defining transmission, recovery, and immunity loss rates in a population.	Simulating the long-term impact of climate warming on epidemic patterns and seasonality [33].

The dynamics of virus transmission are being actively rewritten by the dual forces of a interconnected world and a warming climate. For the research community, this demands an integrated approach that combines traditional virology with climate science and computational modeling. The experimental data and models presented confirm that global travel rapidly disseminates emerging threats, while climatic shifts create new, receptive environments for their establishment. Future strategies for outbreak prediction, detection rate analysis, and drug and vaccine development must be inherently climate-aware and geographically broad. Success will hinge on the implementation of robust, climate-informed surveillance systems that leverage genomic, epidemiological, and meteorological data within a One Health framework to anticipate and mitigate the next wave of climate-amplified epidemics.

Sampling and Diagnostic Technologies: Maximizing Detection Yield

The accurate detection of respiratory viruses is a cornerstone of public health responses, clinical management, and virological research. The diagnostic process begins with the collection of a high-quality specimen, making the choice of sampling method a critical determinant of downstream results. For decades, the nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) has been widely regarded as the reference standard for detecting a broad spectrum of respiratory viruses due to its high viral load recovery from the primary site of replication [34]. However, the discomfort associated with NPS, the risk of nosocomial transmission due to induced coughing, and the need for trained healthcare professionals have prompted the search for less invasive and more user-friendly alternatives [35] [36].

This guide provides a comparative analysis of four key upper respiratory tract sampling methods—Nasopharyngeal Swab, Nasopharyngeal Wash/Aspirate, Nasal Wash, and Saliva—within the context of detection rate analysis for multiple respiratory viruses. We objectively evaluate their performance based on recent and robust experimental data, detail the experimental protocols from pivotal studies, and provide resources to inform researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals in their methodological decisions.

Comparative Analysis of Sampling Methods

The ideal sampling method combines a high detection rate with patient comfort and operational feasibility. The table below summarizes the key characteristics and performance metrics of the four primary methods based on current literature.

Table 1: Comparative Overview of Respiratory Virus Sampling Methods

Sampling Method	Key Characteristics	Overall Detection Rate (vs. NPS)	Advantages	Disadvantages
Nasopharyngeal Swab (NPS)	Swab inserted into nasopharynx; considered the traditional benchmark [34].	Benchmark (100% in several studies [34])	High viral concentration; considered gold standard for many viruses [34] [37].	Invasive; causes discomfort and coughing; requires trained staff [35] [36].
Nasopharyngeal Wash/Aspirate	Saline irrigated into nasopharynx and then recollected via suction or gravity [38] [36].	Superior/Comparable (Nasal wash: 88% [38]; NP wash: top-ranked in network meta-analysis [37])	Excellent detection; potentially less discomfort than NPS [38] [36].	Can be messy; requires suction apparatus or patient cooperation.
Anterior Nasal Swab	Swab rotates in the anterior nares (nostrils) [34] [39].	Good (83.3% with 5 rubs; improved with 10 rubs [34])	Less invasive; well-tolerated; suitable for self-collection [34] [39].	Detection rate can be technique-dependent (e.g., number of rubs) [34].
Saliva	Collection of saliva via drool, spit, or swab [34] [35] [40].	Good (76.3% for respiratory viruses [35]; 81.5% sensitivity for SARS-CoV-2 [40])	Non-invasive; well-tolerated; no specialized equipment needed [39] [40].	Viscosity can complicate processing; detection varies by virus [35].

Virus-Specific Performance

The performance of sampling methods is not uniform across all respiratory viruses. A network meta-analysis of 57 studies provided a hierarchy of methods for specific virus groups, revealing important variations [37].

Table 2: Virus-Specific Ranking of Sampling Methods by Detection Rate

Virus	Top-Performing Sampling Methods
Overall Respiratory Viruses	Nasopharyngeal Wash (NPW), Mid-Turbinate Swab (MTS), Nasopharyngeal Swab (NPS) [37]
Influenza Virus	Mid-Turbinate Swab (MTS), Nasopharyngeal Wash (NPW), Nasopharyngeal Swab (NPS) [37]
Rhinovirus & Parainfluenza	Saliva, Nasopharyngeal Wash (NPW), Nasopharyngeal Swab (NPS) [37]
Adenovirus	Saliva, Nasopharyngeal Wash (NPW), Mid-Turbinate Swab (MTS) [37]
Coronavirus	Sputum, Mid-Turbinate Swab (MTS), Nasopharyngeal Swab (NPS) [37]
Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV)	Nasopharyngeal Wash (NPW), Mid-Turbinate Swab (MTS), Nasopharyngeal Aspirate (NPA) [37]

Notably, some studies have found that for certain viruses like adenovirus, saliva can yield a significantly higher detection rate compared to NPS, while for influenza A and human rhinovirus, NPS may be more sensitive [35]. This underscores the importance of matching the sampling method to the target pathogen.

Experimental Data and Detection Rates

Quantitative data from comparative studies provides the foundation for evidence-based method selection. Key metrics include positivity rates and viral concentration, as measured by PCR cycle threshold (Ct) values.

Positivity Rate Comparisons

A 2023 study by Lee et al. compared multiple sample types from the same patients and found NPSs maintained a 100% positivity rate for confirmed SARS-CoV-2 and other respiratory virus infections. In contrast, nasal swabs (five rubs) had a positivity rate of 83.3%, failing to detect the virus in some patients [34]. This highlights that while alternatives are viable, they may have a lower diagnostic sensitivity.

A broader perspective comes from a network meta-analysis which ranked 16 different sampling methods. The analysis positioned Nasopharyngeal Wash (NPW) as the top-ranking method for overall respiratory virus detection, followed by Mid-Turbinate Swab (MTS) and Nasopharyngeal Swab (NPS) [37]. This suggests that washes/aspirates may offer a slight advantage in recovery, though swabs remain highly effective.

Viral Load and Technique Impact

The same 2023 study provided crucial data on viral concentration. NPS samples consistently showed the lowest Ct values, indicating the highest virus concentrations [34]. However, the study also demonstrated that technique profoundly influences quality. For nasal swabs, performing 10 rubs of the nostril yielded a significantly lower median Ct value for SARS-CoV-2 (Ct=24.3) compared to 5 rubs (Ct=28.9), making the more vigorous collection statistically comparable to NPS [34]. This underscores that standardized, sufficient collection technique is vital for optimal sensitivity, especially for self-administered methods.

Detailed Experimental Protocols

To ensure reproducibility and critical appraisal, researchers must understand the methodologies underpinning the cited data. Below are the protocols from two key studies that provided direct comparisons.

Protocol 1: Comprehensive Comparison of Swabs, Washes, and Saliva

A 2023 study compared nasal swabs, NPSs, and saliva samples using a consistent PCR methodology [34].

• Sample Collection: Five to six samples were collected from each of 48 patients in a specific order:
  • Nasal Swab: Self-collected by patients using an applicator, rubbing the inside of one nostril five times (10 times in the other nostril for a subset of patients).
  • NPS (Two Types): Collected by medical staff using products from two different manufacturers (Noble Bio and Copan). Swabs were inserted into the nasopharynx and rotated in place 2-3 times for at least 5 seconds.
  • Saliva Samples: Two types were collected: a saliva swab placed under the tongue for at least 3 minutes, and undiluted saliva collected by spitting into a funnel-shaped tube.
• Transport: All swab samples were immersed in the same type and volume of Clinical Virus Transport Medium (CTM) and transported to the lab within one hour.
• PCR Analysis: Nucleic acids were extracted using QIAcube and QIAamp Viral RNA Mini Kits. Real-time PCR for 16 respiratory viruses, including SARS-CoV-2, was performed using Allplex Respiratory Panels and the Allplex SARS-CoV-2 kit on a CFX96 Real-Time PCR Detection System. Cycle threshold (Ct) values were compared.

Protocol 2: Comparison of Nasal Secretion Sampling Methods

A 2008 multicenter study compared the efficacy and discomfort of four nasal sampling techniques [38].

• Sample Collection: Four samples were obtained from each of 58 patients with common cold symptoms, in the following order:
  • Nasal Swab: Cotton tip rubbed the middle meatus.
  • Nasal Aspirate: Collected using a sterile mucus trap connected to gentle wall suction.
  • Nasal Wash: Performed by instilling 2.5 ml of normal saline into one nostril, harvesting the mucus 30 seconds later using a sterile mucus trap and suction.
  • Nasal Brush: Harvested from the nasal cavity middle meatus using a cytobrush.
• Patient Discomfort: After each procedure, patients evaluated discomfort using a visual rating scale (1-5).
• PCR Analysis: Viral detection was performed using single-pathogen RT-PCRs for Rhinovirus, Influenza virus, and Adenovirus, as well as a multiplex real-time PCR for a broader panel of viruses.

The workflow for a direct comparison study is summarized in the diagram below:

Diagram 1: Workflow for a direct comparison study of sampling methods.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Successful detection of respiratory viruses relies on a suite of standardized reagents and kits. The following table details essential materials commonly used in the field, as referenced in the cited studies.

Table 3: Key Research Reagents and Materials for Respiratory Virus Detection

Item	Function/Description	Example Products/Brands
Universal Transport Medium (UTM)	Preserves viral integrity and nucleic acids during swab transport and storage.	Copan UTM [39], Clinical Virus Transport Medium (CTM) [34]
Nucleic Acid Extraction Kits	Isolates viral RNA/DNA from clinical samples for downstream PCR analysis.	QIAamp Viral RNA Mini Kit (Qiagen) [34] [41], GeneAll Ribospin Kit [42]
Multiplex RT-PCR Assays	Simultaneously detects multiple respiratory virus targets in a single reaction.	Allplex Respiratory Panels & SARS-CoV-2 Assay (Seegene) [34], Anyplex II RV16 Detection (Seegene) [35] [42], BioFire Respiratory Panel 2.1 [39]
Flocked Swabs	Swabs with perpendicular fibers designed to maximize sample absorption and release.	FLOQSwabs (Copan) [34], Nylon-flocked dry swabs (Copan) [39]
Real-Time PCR Instrument	Platform for amplifying and detecting nucleic acids, providing quantitative Ct values.	CFX96 Real-Time PCR Detection System (Bio-Rad) [34]

The evidence demonstrates that while the Nasopharyngeal Swab remains a highly sensitive benchmark, several alternatives offer comparable performance with significant advantages in patient comfort and feasibility.

• For Maximum Sensitivity: Nasopharyngeal Wash/Aspirate consistently ranks at the top for detection rate across multiple viruses and should be considered when the highest sensitivity is the paramount concern, despite being slightly more cumbersome [37] [38].
• For a Balance of Sensitivity and Practicality: Anterior Nasal Swabs are a robust alternative, especially when collection is performed vigorously and sufficiently. Their suitability for self-collection makes them invaluable for large-scale surveillance and testing in resource-limited settings [34] [37] [39].
• For Non-Invasive Collection and Specific Viruses: Saliva is a strong candidate, particularly for detecting adenovirus and rhinovirus. Its excellent tolerability makes it ideal for pediatric populations and repeated sampling [35] [37] [39].

A critical finding for researchers is that the optimal sampling method can be virus-dependent. Therefore, the choice of method should be guided by the primary respiratory viruses under investigation, the study population, and the logistical constraints of the research setting. Future work should focus on further standardizing collection protocols for alternative methods to maximize their diagnostic yield and reliability.

The hierarchy of sampling methods, integrating detection rate and tolerability, is visualized below:

Diagram 2: A simplified hierarchy of sampling methods based on overall detection rate and tolerability.

The accurate detection and characterization of respiratory viruses are fundamental to effective clinical management, infection control, and public health surveillance. The performance of any diagnostic test is intrinsically linked to the quality and appropriateness of the specimen collected, making sampling protocols a critical first step in the diagnostic pathway. This guide synthesizes evidence from recent meta-analyses and systematic reviews to provide evidence-based, virus-specific sampling recommendations. Within the broader context of detection rate analysis for multiple respiratory viruses, we objectively compare sampling methodologies, supported by experimental data on their performance across different viruses and patient populations. The goal is to equip researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals with a consolidated resource to optimize pre-analytical protocols, thereby enhancing the sensitivity, specificity, and overall reliability of viral detection in both research and clinical settings.

Comparative Detection Rates Across Respiratory Viruses

Understanding the baseline prevalence and detection rates of respiratory viruses across different demographics and clinical settings is crucial for interpreting test results and allocating resources. The following table summarizes pooled prevalence data from recent large-scale studies, highlighting key variations.

Table 1: Pooled Detection Rates of Respiratory Viruses from Recent Meta-Analyses

Virus	Overall Pooled Prevalence	Key Population Variations	Sample Size (Total Patients)	Clinical Context
Human Metapneumovirus (hMPV)	5.3% (95% CI: 5.0%-5.6%) [43]	◉ Children <5 years: 6.7%◉ Adults: 2.5%◉ Inpatients: 6.1%◉ Outpatients: 3.3%	2,236,820	Respiratory Tract Infections (RTIs) [43]
SARS-CoV-2	Dominant during pandemic peaks (65.5% of positive cases) [16]	◉ Post-pandemic shift: Non-SARS-CoV-2 viruses rebounded [16]	748	Lower Respiratory Tract Infections (LRTIs) [16]
Rhinovirus/Enterovirus	Became dominant post-pandemic (71.5% of positive cases) [16]	◉ Higher positivity in children (71.5%) vs. adults (40%) [16]	748	Lower Respiratory Tract Infections (LRTIs) [16]
Multiple Respiratory Viruses	43.6% overall positivity [16]	◉ Co-infections more frequent in children (14.1%) vs. adults (2.7%) [16]	748	Suspected LRTIs, tested with multiplex PCR [16]

These quantitative findings underscore the dynamic nature of respiratory virus epidemiology. The data reveals significant differences in viral prevalence based on age and clinical status, which must be considered when designing sampling strategies and interpreting results. For instance, the higher observed prevalence of hMPV in young children and inpatients suggests that targeted sampling in these groups yields higher diagnostic value [43]. Furthermore, the notable post-pandemic shift in dominant viral agents highlights the importance of ongoing surveillance and flexible diagnostic protocols [16].

Methodologies for Evidence Synthesis and Viral Detection

The recommendations herein are derived from rigorous methodological frameworks employed in modern systematic reviews and meta-analyses. The following section outlines the core experimental and analytical protocols that generate the evidence supporting sampling decisions.

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocol

High-level recommendations are often grounded in large-scale evidence synthesis. A standardized protocol ensures reproducibility and minimizes bias [44].

• Study Registration: The protocol is registered a priori in a platform like PROSPERO (e.g., CRD42023468287) [44].
• Search Strategy: Comprehensive, systematic searches are conducted across major databases (e.g., PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science) without date or language restrictions. Search terms combine keywords related to the virus (e.g., "human metapneumovirus"), infection (e.g., "respiratory tract infections"), and diagnostics [44] [43].
• Eligibility Screening: Studies are selected based on the PICO/PECOS framework. Titles, abstracts, and full texts are screened independently by multiple reviewers to select original studies that investigate the presence of the target virus [44] [45].
• Data Extraction & Quality Assessment: Data on author, publication year, sample size, participant demographics, and prevalence outcomes are extracted. The risk of bias is assessed using tools like ROBINS-E, and the certainty of evidence is evaluated with the GRADE framework [44] [46].
• Statistical Analysis: A random-effects meta-analysis is performed to calculate the pooled prevalence and 95% confidence intervals. The Freeman-Tukey double arcsine transformation is often used to stabilize variances for prevalence data. Heterogeneity is quantified using the I² statistic [44] [43].

Laboratory Detection Techniques

The laboratory methods used in the primary studies included in these meta-analyses form the basis for validating sampling approaches.

• Sample Collection: Nasopharyngeal swabs are the most common sample type for respiratory viruses. Swabs are typically flocked and placed in universal transport media (UTM) [47].
• Nucleic Acid Extraction: Automated systems, such as the EasyMAG (BioMérieux), are used to isolate viral RNA/DNA from UTM, following manufacturer protocols like the NUCLISENS (Boom) method [47].
• Multiplex PCR Detection: Reverse transcription-quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR) is the gold standard. Multiplex panels (e.g., QIAstat-Dx Respiratory Panel) enable simultaneous detection of 15-20+ viral targets (e.g., SARS-CoV-2, Influenza, RSV, hMPV, Rhinovirus) in a single reaction [16] [47].
• Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS): For comprehensive variant analysis and resistance detection, NGS is employed. This involves:
  • Target Amplification: Pathogen-specific primers (e.g., DeepChek assays) are used to generate amplicons covering drug-resistance regions [48].
  • Library Preparation: Amplicons are fragmented, and adapters are ligated for platforms like Illumina ISeq100/MiSeq and MGI DNBSEQ-G400 [48].
  • Sequencing & Analysis: Data is generated and analyzed on platforms like Oxford Nanopore MinION or Illumina, with bioinformatics software (e.g., DeepChek) for variant calling [48].
• Host Biomarker Detection: An emerging complementary approach involves measuring the host's immune response. For example, CXCL10 protein levels in nasopharyngeal samples are quantified using immunoassays to rule out viral infection, acting as a pan-viral screening tool [47].

Advanced Diagnostic and Research Workflows

Beyond standard PCR, advanced workflows are critical for pathogen characterization and overcoming diagnostic challenges.

From Sampling to Variant Reporting via NGS

Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS) is crucial for identifying mutations and tracking viral evolution, which informs public health measures and therapeutic development [48].

This workflow demonstrates high concordance across sequencing platforms (Illumina ISeq100, MiSeq, MGI DNBSEQ-G400, Oxford Nanopore MinION) for detecting majority variants. However, nanopore technology has been observed to report a higher number of minority mutations (<20%), a critical consideration for researching viral quasispecies [48].

Host-Response Profiling for Etiological Triage

Distinguishing bacterial from viral infections is a major challenge. A novel approach leverages the host's immune response rather than direct pathogen detection [49].

This host-response test measures TRAIL (induced in viral infections), IP-10 (also elevated in viral infections), and CRP (typically higher in bacterial infections). The algorithm combining these three proteins demonstrated a sensitivity of 51% and specificity of 91% for bacterial infection in a pediatric study, with significantly better performance (sensitivity 0.70) in antibiotic-naïve patients [49]. This highlights how host-response profiling can guide antibiotic stewardship, complementing direct pathogen detection methods.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Successful viral detection and characterization depend on a suite of reliable reagents and platforms. The following table details key solutions used in the featured methodologies.

Table 2: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Viral Detection and Analysis

Product/Technology	Primary Function	Key Application in Viral Research
QIAstat-Dx Respiratory Panel [16]	Multiplex RT-qPCR	Simultaneous detection and identification of 19+ respiratory viruses (SARS-CoV-2, influenza, RSV, hMPV) from a single sample.
DeepChek Assays [48]	Targeted Amplification	Generation of pathogen-specific amplicons for NGS, covering drug-resistance regions in HIV, HBV, HCV, and SARS-CoV-2.
LIAISON MeMed BV Test [49]	Host-Response Immunoassay	Differentiating bacterial from viral infections by quantitatively measuring TRAIL, IP-10, and CRP levels in blood.
Universal Transport Media (UTM) [47]	Specimen Preservation	Maintains viral integrity during transport and storage of nasopharyngeal swab specimens prior to nucleic acid extraction.
DeepChek Software [48]	Bioinformatics Analysis	A unified platform for analyzing NGS data from multiple platforms (Illumina, Nanopore, MGI), enabling variant calling and resistance reporting.
CRISPR/Cas-based Assays [50]	Rapid Molecular Detection	Provides highly sensitive and specific detection of pathogen-specific genes (e.g., mecA for MRSA) in under 60 minutes, promising for point-of-care use.

This guide has synthesized current evidence to present virus-specific sampling recommendations grounded in detection rate analyses. The data reveals critical variations in viral prevalence based on age, clinical setting, and temporal context, underscoring the need for tailored approaches. The comparative analysis of experimental protocols—from gold-standard multiplex PCR and advanced NGS to innovative host-response profiling—provides a framework for selecting the optimal methodology based on research or clinical objectives. As the field evolves, the integration of rapid, point-of-care tools like CRISPR-based assays with traditional, comprehensive methods will further refine our ability to detect and characterize respiratory viruses. For researchers and drug development professionals, adhering to these evidence-based sampling and diagnostic protocols is paramount for generating reliable, actionable data that can inform therapeutic development and public health strategy.

The diagnostic landscape for infectious diseases has been fundamentally transformed by the advent of multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) technologies. This molecular revolution enables clinicians and researchers to simultaneously detect numerous pathogens from a single sample—addressing critical challenges in diagnosing complex infections with overlapping symptoms. Particularly in respiratory medicine, where traditional methods often struggle with sensitivity, speed, and comprehensive coverage, multiplex PCR panels capable of identifying 19 or more pathogens have emerged as indispensable tools. This technology has proven especially valuable in the context of detection rate analysis for multiple respiratory viruses, providing unprecedented insights into co-infection patterns, seasonal variability, and epidemiological shifts following the COVID-19 pandemic. This guide examines the performance characteristics of leading multiplex PCR systems, evaluates their clinical and research applications, and explores their growing role in shaping public health responses to respiratory infections.

Performance Benchmarking: Multiplex PCR Versus Conventional Methods

Multiplex PCR assays demonstrate significant advantages over traditional diagnostic methods in both detection capabilities and operational efficiency. The following comparison synthesizes performance data from recent clinical evaluations across diverse healthcare settings.

Table 1: Comparative Performance of Multiplex PCR Assays in Clinical Validation Studies

Assay/Platform	Targets Detected	Sample Type	Sensitivity	Specificity	Key Findings
Fluorescence Melting Curve Analysis (FMCA) Multiplex PCR [51]	6 pathogens (SARS-CoV-2, IAV, IBV, RSV, hADV, MP)	Nasopharyngeal swabs (n=1,005)	98.81% agreement with RT-qPCR	No cross-reactivity observed	Limit of detection (LOD): 4.94-14.03 copies/µL; Cost: $5/sample; Turnaround: 1.5 hours
QIAstat-Dx Respiratory Panel [16]	19 viruses + 3 bacteria	Nasopharyngeal swabs (n=748)	Higher than conventional methods	Specific detection of all targets	Significantly higher positivity in children (71.5%) vs. adults (40%); 14.1% co-infection rate in children
BioFire FilmArray Pneumonia Panel [52]	Multiple bacterial and viral targets	Respiratory specimens (n=403)	60.3% positivity rate	77.2% concordance with culture	Superior to bacterial culture (52.8% positivity); identified viral co-infections missed by culture
Respiratory Pathogens Multiplex Nucleic Acid Diagnostic Kit [53]	6 bacterial + 6 viral targets	Bronchoalveolar lavage (n=728)	PPA: 84.6%	NPA: 96.5%	Positivity rate: 86.3%; multiple pathogens detected in 19.8% of samples
BioFire FilmArray Global Fever Panel [54]	19 pathogens including HCIDs	Blood	85.71% overall sensitivity	96.0% overall negative agreement	Variable performance by pathogen: P. falciparum (95%), Leptospira (50%)

The data reveal that modern multiplex PCR systems consistently outperform conventional culture methods, particularly for viral detection and identifying co-infections. The higher positivity rates (ranging from 60.3% to 86.3% across studies) highlight the limitations of traditional methods, which often miss fastidious pathogens or cases where patients have received prior antibiotic treatment [53] [52].

Beyond raw detection capabilities, multiplex PCR offers substantial time savings, with results available in approximately 1 hour compared to the 48-72 hours typically required for culture-based methods [53]. This accelerated timeline enables more timely clinical interventions, potentially improving patient outcomes and facilitating earlier implementation of infection control measures.

Table 2: Key Advantages of Multiplex PCR for Respiratory Pathogen Detection

Parameter	Multiplex PCR	Conventional Methods
Turnaround Time	1-1.5 hours [51]	2-3 days (culture) [53]
Detection Range	19+ pathogens simultaneously [16]	Typically single pathogens
Sensitivity	High (84.6-98.8% PPA) [53] [51]	Variable, often lower
Co-infection Detection	Excellent (14.1-25% rates) [55] [16]	Frequently missed
Automation Potential	High	Low to moderate
Impact of Prior Antibiotics	Minimal	Significant reduction in yield

Technical Insights: Experimental Protocols and Workflows

Core Principles of Multiplex PCR Development

The development of robust multiplex PCR assays requires careful optimization to overcome inherent technical challenges. The fundamental principle involves amplifying multiple target sequences in a single reaction tube using more than one pair of primers [56]. Success depends on several critical factors:

• Primer Design: Primers must have similar optimum annealing temperatures (typically 18-30 bp with GC content of 35-60%) and must not display significant homology to one another to prevent spurious amplification [56].

• Reaction Optimization: Multiplex PCRs often require adjusted concentrations of PCR components compared to uniplex reactions. This may include increased Taq DNA polymerase concentrations (up to 4-5 times greater than uniplex PCR) with corresponding adjustments in MgCl₂ concentration [56].

• Specificity Enhancement: Hot start PCR methodology effectively eliminates nonspecific reactions caused by primer annealing at low temperatures before thermocycling commences [56]. Additives including dimethyl sulfoxide, glycerol, bovine serum albumin, or betaine may improve results by preventing stalling of DNA polymerization through secondary structure formation [56].

Representative Experimental Workflow

The following diagram illustrates a generalized workflow for multiplex PCR-based pathogen detection, synthesized from several validated protocols:

Multiplex PCR Pathogen Detection Workflow

Advanced Detection Methodologies

Recent technological advancements have enhanced the sophistication of multiplex pathogen detection:

• Fluorescence Melting Curve Analysis (FMCA): This method identifies pathogens based on unique melting temperatures (Tm) of specific hybridization probes bound to their complementary DNA sequences. A 2025 FMCA-based multiplex PCR assay demonstrated distinct Tm values for six respiratory pathogens, enabling accurate differentiation in a single reaction [51].

• SYBR Green-Based Melt Curve Analysis: This cost-effective approach uses intercalating dyes rather than expensive probes. A validated assay for simian Plasmodium detection showed distinct Tm values for P. knowlesi (85.2°C), P. cynomolgi (78.0°C), and P. inui (82.5°C) [57].

• Automated Panel Systems: Commercial systems like BioFire FilmArray and QIAstat-Dx incorporate sample preparation, amplification, and detection into integrated, closed-tube systems that minimize contamination risk and technical variability [54] [16].

Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Successful implementation of multiplex PCR assays requires specific reagent systems optimized for simultaneous amplification of multiple targets. The following table details critical components derived from validated experimental protocols.

Table 3: Essential Research Reagent Solutions for Multiplex PCR

Reagent Category	Specific Examples	Function & Importance	Optimization Notes
Nucleic Acid Extraction Kits	MPN-16C RNA/DNA extraction kit [51]	Simultaneous extraction of RNA and DNA from clinical samples	Compatible with automated extraction systems; includes pre-treatment steps for difficult samples
Multiplex PCR Master Mixes	One Step U* Mix with Enzyme Mix [51]	Provides optimized buffer conditions for multiplex amplification	Contains reverse transcriptase for cDNA synthesis in RT-PCR applications
Primer Cocktails	Species-specific primer sets [51] [57]	Simultaneous detection of multiple targets through optimized primer ratios	Asymmetric primer ratios (e.g., 1:1.5 for certain targets) enhance probe hybridization in FMCA [51]
Detection Chemistries	SYBR Green [57], Fluorescently-labeled probes [51]	Signal generation for pathogen identification and differentiation	SYBR Green offers cost advantages; labeled probes provide higher specificity
Positive Controls	Plasmid DNA with target sequences [51] [57]	Assay validation and sensitivity determination	Typically contain conserved gene regions (msp1 for Plasmodium, hexon for adenovirus)
Instrument Platforms	SLAN-96S system [51], Hongshi SLAN-96P [53], QuantStudio 5 [53]	Automated thermal cycling and signal detection	Must support melting curve analysis for FMCA applications

Clinical and Research Applications

Detection Rate Analysis in Respiratory Virus Research

Multiplex PCR has become foundational to respiratory virus surveillance, providing critical insights into temporal patterns, age-specific prevalence, and co-infection dynamics. Key findings from recent studies include:

• Age Disparities in Detection Rates: A comprehensive analysis of 748 nasopharyngeal samples revealed significantly higher viral detection in pediatric patients (71.5%) compared to adults (40%), with children also exhibiting higher rates of co-infections (14.1% vs. 2.7%) [16]. This underscores the particular vulnerability of pediatric populations and the importance of age-stratified surveillance data.

• Epidemiological Shifts Post-Pandemic: The same study documented substantial changes in respiratory virus circulation following the COVID-19 pandemic. While SARS-CoV-2 dominated during the pandemic period (65.5% of positive cases), the post-pandemic phase saw a shift toward other pathogens, particularly Rhinovirus/Enterovirus (71.5% of positive samples) [16].

• Seasonal Surveillance Insights: Recent surveillance data through September 2025 indicates that rhinovirus has emerged as the leading cause of virus-associated hospitalizations (1.0% of all hospitalizations), with particularly high prevalence in children aged 0-4 years (1.7% of hospitalizations in this age group) [58].

Identification of Co-infections and Multiple Pathogen carriage

A significant advantage of multiplex PCR technology is its ability to detect multiple pathogen carriage, which has important implications for clinical management and understanding disease severity:

• High Co-infection Rates: One study evaluating an 18-pathogen multiplex PCR assay found co-infections in 25% of positive samples [55], while another large analysis of BAL specimens detected multiple pathogens in 19.8% of samples using a 12-plex respiratory panel [53].

• Pathogen Combination Patterns: Research has identified that viral-bacterial co-infections are common, with particular clinical significance. The BioFire FilmArray Pneumonia Panel demonstrated superior capability to identify these mixed infections compared to culture methods [52].

Application in High-Consequence Infectious Diseases

Multiplex PCR panels have proven particularly valuable in diagnosing high-consequence infectious diseases (HCIDs), where rapid identification is critical for both patient outcomes and public health responses:

• The BioFire FilmArray Global Fever Panel demonstrated variable sensitivity across pathogens but effectively detected viral hemorrhagic fever agents including Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever virus (1/1), Ebola virus (1/1), and Marburg virus (1/1) in less than one hour [54]. This accelerated timeline is particularly significant in biocontainment settings where reducing sample transport and processing time can impact both patient care and biosafety.

Future Directions and Implementation Considerations

Emerging Trends and Technological Advancements

The field of multiplex PCR continues to evolve with several promising developments:

• Cost-Effective Alternatives: Laboratory-developed tests like the FMCA-based multiplex PCR offer significant cost advantages ($5/sample compared to commercial kits) while maintaining high sensitivity and specificity [51]. These alternatives increase accessibility for resource-limited settings.

• Expanded Pathogen Panels: Ongoing research focuses on increasing the number of detectable pathogens in single panels while maintaining performance characteristics. Current panels detecting 19+ targets represent a significant advancement over earlier systems [16].

• Integration with Forecasting Models: The application of multiplex PCR data to predictive modeling represents a cutting-edge application. Researchers have successfully used ARIMA time-series models with multiplex PCR results to forecast respiratory virus trends through 2027 [16].

Practical Implementation Guidelines

Successful deployment of multiplex PCR technologies requires attention to several practical considerations:

• Validation Requirements: Laboratories must conduct method verification studies to ensure performance claims are met in their specific settings, including sensitivity, specificity, and reproducibility assessments [53] [51].

• Result Interpretation: The clinical significance of detecting multiple pathogens, particularly at low viral loads, requires careful interpretation in the context of patient symptoms and epidemiological factors [53] [16].

• Quality Control Procedures: Implementation of robust quality control measures, including external quality assessment programs, is essential to maintain testing accuracy across multiple targets [56] [53].

Multiplex PCR technology has fundamentally advanced our ability to detect and characterize respiratory infections in clinical and research settings. Systems capable of simultaneously identifying 19 or more pathogens provide unprecedented insights into complex infection patterns, age-specific prevalence, and temporal trends—delivering significant advantages over conventional diagnostic methods. The technology's rapid turnaround time, comprehensive pathogen coverage, and robust performance characteristics make it an indispensable tool for clinical decision-making, infection control, and public health surveillance. As these systems continue to evolve with improvements in cost-effectiveness, automation, and detection capabilities, their role in respiratory virus research and routine clinical practice will undoubtedly expand, further enhancing our ability to understand and respond to complex infectious disease challenges.

Respiratory viruses pose a significant global health challenge, with influenza, SARS-CoV-2, and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) representing pathogens of major concern due to their impact on morbidity, mortality, and healthcare systems [59]. The accurate and timely detection of these pathogens is crucial for clinical management, infection control, and public health surveillance. In recent years, diagnostic paradigms have shifted toward decentralized testing models, including point-of-care (POC) and at-home testing, which offer the potential for rapid results and improved accessibility [60] [10]. This comparison guide objectively analyzes the performance characteristics of various respiratory virus testing modalities, with a specific focus on their detection rates within the context of advancing research on multiplex respiratory virus detection.

The fundamental challenge in respiratory virus diagnostics lies in balancing the competing priorities of speed, accuracy, and accessibility. While laboratory-based molecular tests such as polymerase chain reaction (PCR) remain the gold standard for accuracy [61] [59], their implementation in centralized facilities creates inherent delays in result turnaround time. Conversely, rapid antigen tests provide speed and convenience but demonstrate variable sensitivity, particularly at higher cycle threshold (Ct) values indicating lower viral loads [62] [63] [59]. Emerging POC molecular platforms now offer a potential middle ground, combining nucleic acid amplification technology with simplified workflows suitable for near-patient testing environments [64] [65].

Performance Comparison of Testing Modalities

Analytical Sensitivity and Detection Rates

Sensitivity represents a critical differentiator among respiratory testing platforms, directly influencing detection rates and clinical utility. Table 1 summarizes the performance characteristics of major testing categories based on current evidence.

Table 1: Performance Comparison of Respiratory Virus Testing Modalities

Testing Modality	Representative Platforms	Analytical Sensitivity	Turnaround Time	Key Advantages	Major Limitations
Laboratory-based PCR	Standard RT-PCR platforms	High (reference standard)	24-48 hours [61]	Comprehensive pathogen panels, high throughput	Specialized facilities required, longer turnaround
POC Molecular Tests	Xpert Xpress, Abbott ID Now [64] [65]	Comparable to lab-based PCR [65]	0-2 hours [64]	Rapid results with high accuracy, enables test-and-treat	Higher cost per test, limited throughput
Rapid Antigen Tests	Lateral flow immunoassays [62]	Variable: 97.9% at Ct<20, declines significantly at Ct>25 [59]	15-30 minutes [61] [62]	Low cost, simple operation, suitable for self-testing	Lower sensitivity, especially in low viral loads

The sensitivity of rapid antigen tests demonstrates considerable dependence on viral load, as reflected by Ct values. One study reported that while rapid antigen tests achieve 97.9% sensitivity at Ct values below 20 (high viral load), their performance drops significantly to below 30% at higher Ct values (lower viral loads) [59]. This relationship has profound implications for detection rates, particularly in populations with partial immunity from vaccination or previous infection, who often present with lower viral loads [59].

Impact on Clinical Decision-Making and Patient Outcomes

The timeliness and accuracy of diagnostic results directly influence clinical management and patient outcomes. A real-world comparison of POC molecular testing versus laboratory-based testing demonstrated significant advantages for the POC approach. Patients tested with the Xpert Xpress POC molecular test received diagnoses immediately (zero days) compared to four or more days for those undergoing send-out laboratory testing [64]. This accelerated diagnostic timeline translated into meaningful clinical benefits: the POC testing group was more likely to receive appropriate treatment (7.4% vs. 4.3%) and received treatment more quickly (one vs. five days) [64].

The diagnostic approach also influences testing patterns and resource utilization. Patients tested with POC molecular platforms underwent less additional testing after the initial visit (<15% required two or more tests) compared to 50% in the laboratory send-out group [64]. This reduction in repeat testing represents more efficient diagnostic stewardship and potential cost savings despite higher per-test costs for molecular platforms.

Methodological Approaches in Detection Rate Analysis

Experimental Protocols for Test Performance Evaluation

Studies evaluating the performance of respiratory virus tests employ rigorous methodological approaches to generate comparable data. The following protocols represent standard methodologies cited in the literature:

3.1.1 Laboratory-Anchored Framework for Antigen Test Evaluation JMIR research outlines a comprehensive, quantitative framework that links image-based test line intensities with population distributions of naked-eye limits of detection (LoD) [63]. This methodology involves:

• Quantitative evaluation of test signal response to concentrations of target protein and inactive or active virus using dilution series
• Statistical characterization of LoD using observers' visual acuity of the test band
• Calibration of a gold-standard method (qRT-PCR cycles) against virus concentration
• Bayesian-based predictive modeling to describe real-world performance through probability of positive agreement as a function of viral-load variables [63]

3.1.2 Real-World Performance Studies Real-world assessments typically employ comparative designs analyzing outcomes between different testing approaches. The study by Stockl et al. compared two groups of patients presenting with influenza-like illness: those receiving POC molecular testing using Xpert Xpress tests and those undergoing laboratory-based molecular testing [64]. The protocol assessed outcomes on the day of the initial visit and through 90 days of follow-up, measuring time to diagnosis, treatment rates, time to treatment, and additional testing requirements [64].

3.1.3 User Experience and Usability Evaluation For self-testing applications, usability assessment becomes crucial. One study protocol evaluated user experience through:

• Post-test questionnaires using 5-point Likert scales to assess usability dimensions
• Agreement analysis between participant-interpreted results and researcher-interpreted results
• Text analysis of free-text responses to identify usability challenges [66] This approach recognizes that even highly accurate tests may fail in real-world settings if usability is compromised.

Testing Workflow and Decision Pathways

The following diagram illustrates the typical testing workflow and decision pathways for respiratory virus detection across different testing modalities:

Research Reagent Solutions for Respiratory Virus Detection

The development and implementation of respiratory virus tests rely on specialized reagents and materials. Table 2 details key research reagent solutions essential for advancing detection technologies.

Table 2: Essential Research Reagent Solutions for Respiratory Virus Detection Assays

Reagent Category	Specific Examples	Primary Function	Application Context
Master Mixes	Lyophilization-ready multiplex qPCR and LAMP master mixes [10]	Nucleic acid amplification with room-temperature stability	POC molecular tests, multiplex panels
Antibody Reagents	High-sensitivity paired antibodies for lateral flow assays [10]	Antigen capture and detection in immunoassays	Rapid antigen tests, lateral flow devices
Sample Preparation	Ambient-temperature stable NGS sample prep kits [10]	Simplified workflow for next-generation sequencing	Pathogen discovery, variant surveillance
Viral Transport Media	Specimen-specific transport media [10]	Preserve sample integrity during transport	Laboratory-based testing, sample logistics
Control Materials	Recombinant viral proteins, inactivated virus [63]	Test calibration, quality control, performance validation	Assay development, lot testing

These reagent solutions enable the development of tests with improved stability, sensitivity, and suitability for decentralized settings. For instance, lyophilization-ready master mixes facilitate room-temperature stability and simplified storage, which is particularly valuable in resource-limited environments [10]. Similarly, ambient-temperature stable next-generation sequencing (NGS) sample preparation kits dramatically simplify logistics while maintaining sensitivity and reproducibility [10].

Discussion: Implications for Research and Clinical Practice

Detection Rate Considerations Across Patient Populations

Detection rates for respiratory viruses vary significantly based on testing methodologies and patient characteristics. Research indicates that RSV remains substantially under-detected in adult populations, with testing occurring in only 2.4% of acute respiratory illness episodes among adults aged ≥50 years [24]. This under-testing creates significant gaps in understanding the true burden of RSV disease, with studies estimating that RSV hospitalization incidence increases from 44.6 to 66.9 per 100,000 individuals aged 50-64 years after adjusting for PCR sensitivity [24].

The relationship between viral load and detection capability has important implications for test selection in different populations. Vaccinated individuals with breakthrough infections often display higher Ct values (indicating lower viral loads), which may reduce the detection efficiency of antigen tests [59]. This phenomenon underscores the need for highly sensitive testing approaches in populations with high vaccination coverage or prior immunity.

Usability and Implementation Considerations

The successful implementation of POC and at-home testing extends beyond analytical performance to encompass usability and workflow integration. Stakeholder interviews regarding POC PCR testing implementation reveal that perceived benefits include rapid results, accuracy, and automation, while concerns primarily focus on cost, workload, and device throughput [65]. Interestingly, implementation processes are generally deemed straightforward, but limited involvement in decision-making processes can dissatisfy healthcare providers [65].

For self-testing applications, user experience analysis of lateral flow tests reveals that most users achieve successful operation with minimal training, though challenges persist in blood-sample collection, sample transfer to the test device, and interpretation of test results with faint lines [66]. These findings highlight opportunities for improving test design to enhance usability and reliability in real-world settings.

Future Directions in Respiratory Virus Detection

The field of respiratory virus diagnostics continues to evolve, with several emerging trends shaping future development. The 2025 diagnostic landscape includes growing attention to viruses such as human metapneumovirus (HMPV) and ongoing surveillance of avian influenza (H5N1) and novel coronaviruses [10]. Advanced syndromic molecular panels leveraging qPCR and isothermal amplification technologies like LAMP have become the standard for simultaneous detection of multiple viruses [10]. Emerging technologies such as CRISPR-based diagnostics and next-generation sequencing are further enhancing detection and surveillance capabilities, particularly for novel pathogens [10].

The integration of these technologies with digital platforms and AI-driven algorithms is poised to reshape respiratory disease management, enabling faster diagnosis, more targeted treatment, and improved outbreak response [10]. As these innovations progress, maintaining focus on the fundamental balance between speed, accuracy, and accessibility will remain essential for maximizing their public health impact.

Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS) and CRISPR-Based Assays for Emerging Pathogens

The continuous emergence and evolution of respiratory pathogens, such as SARS-CoV-2 and its variants, influenza, and human metapneumovirus (HMPV), have underscored a critical need for diagnostic and surveillance technologies that are both highly multiplexed and scalable [67] [68]. Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS) and CRISPR-based assays have emerged as two powerful technological paradigms addressing this need. NGS serves as an unbiased discovery tool, capable of identifying novel pathogens and comprehensively tracking mutations across the entire genome [69]. In parallel, CRISPR-based diagnostics have evolved into rapid, sensitive, and field-deployable systems for targeted detection [67] [70]. This guide provides an objective comparison of these technologies, focusing on their performance in detecting multiple respiratory viruses, supported by experimental data and detailed protocols to inform researchers and drug development professionals.

Technology Comparison: Performance and Applications

The selection between NGS and CRISPR-based assays is often dictated by the research or diagnostic objective, whether it's comprehensive genomic surveillance or rapid, targeted identification. The table below summarizes their core performance characteristics based on recent studies.

Table 1: Performance Comparison of NGS and CRISPR-Based Assays for Respiratory Virus Detection

Feature	Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS)	CRISPR-Based Assays (e.g., mCARMEN, SC-Chip)
Primary Application	Pathogen discovery, whole-genome sequencing, variant tracking, and evolutionary analysis [69]	Multiplexed targeted detection, point-of-care testing, and variant identification [67] [71]
Multiplexing Capacity	Very High; can simultaneously sequence all nucleic acids in a sample [69]	High; platforms like mCARMEN can detect 21 viruses and 6 SARS-CoV-2 variants in a single run [67]
Sensitivity	Variable; depends on sequencing depth and viral load. Can miss low-titer viruses without enrichment [67]	High; as low as 10^1-10^2 copies/μL for mCARMEN [67] and 10^-18 M (equivalent to single-digit copies per microliter) for the SC-Chip platform [71]
Turnaround Time	Long; from sample to result can take 24-72 hours due to complex library prep and data analysis [69] [70]	Rapid; results in 1-3 hours for mCARMEN [67] and ~40 minutes for the SC-Chip [71]
Quantification	Relative quantification possible via read counts	Absolute quantification demonstrated for SARS-CoV-2 and influenza A in mCARMEN using Cas13 and Cas12 [67]
Variant Discrimination	Excellent; identifies all known and novel mutations across the entire genome [69]	Excellent for predefined variants; uses variant-specific crRNAs to differentiate lineages like Delta and Omicron [67]
Cost & Accessibility	High cost; requires expensive instrumentation and bioinformatics expertise [72] [69]	Lower cost; estimated at <$13 per sample for mCARMEN [67]. More amenable to resource-limited settings.
Key Limitation	Complex, lengthy process; high cost; requires specialized expertise and infrastructure [72] [69]	Limited to detecting predefined targets; cannot discover novel pathogens outside the designed crRNA panel.

Experimental Protocols and Workflows

NGS for Respiratory Virus Detection and Variant Surveillance

Metagenomic NGS (mNGS) and targeted NGS (tNGS) are the two primary approaches for viral surveillance.

• Sample Collection and Nucleic Acid Extraction: The protocol begins with the collection of clinical specimens such as nasopharyngeal swabs or saliva [69]. Total RNA/DNA is then extracted from the sample. Automated extraction systems are often employed to increase throughput and consistency [67].
• Library Preparation:
  • For mNGS: The extracted nucleic acids are reverse-transcribed and randomly amplified. Sequencing adapters are then ligated to the resulting DNA fragments to create a library that can be sequenced on platforms like Illumina or Oxford Nanopore [69].
  • For tNGS: A targeted amplification step is first performed using panels of primers specific to the pathogens of interest (e.g., the ARTIC Network primer set for SARS-CoV-2). This enriches the viral genetic material before adapter ligation, thereby increasing sensitivity for the target viruses [69].
• Sequencing and Bioinformatics Analysis: The prepared libraries are loaded onto a sequencer. The generated millions of reads are then computationally analyzed through a pipeline involving quality control, alignment to reference genomes, and variant calling to identify single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and indels. This allows for the construction of phylogenetic trees to track viral evolution and transmission chains [69].

CRISPR-Based Multiplexed Detection (mCARMEN Protocol)

The mCARMEN platform combines CRISPR diagnostics with microfluidics for high-throughput, multiplexed testing [67].

• Sample Preparation and Amplification: Patient sample RNA is extracted, often using automated systems. The RNA is then converted to DNA and amplified in a single-step, isothermal amplification reaction using a pool of primers designed to target the 21 respiratory viruses or the SARS-CoV-2 variant lineages of interest.
• CRISPR Detection on a Microfluidic Chip: The amplified product is combined with a mix of Cas proteins (Cas13 and Cas12) and a library of pathogen-specific crRNAs. This mixture is loaded into a commercially available Fluidigm integrated fluidic circuit (IFC). The IFC controller automatically mixes each sample with each CRISPR detection assay in nanoliter-scale reaction chambers.
• Fluorescence Reading and Analysis: The chip is incubated at 37°C, and fluorescence is measured every 5 minutes for 1-3 hours. A positive signal, generated by the collateral cleavage of a fluorescent reporter molecule by an activated Cas protein, indicates the presence of a specific viral target. The use of a polyU-based fluorescent reporter, preferred by the LwaCas13a enzyme, has been shown to enhance sensitivity [67].

The following workflow diagram illustrates the key steps and logical relationship in the mCARMEN protocol:

Microfluidic CRISPR-Cas12a Assay (SC-Chip Protocol)

For a more compact and rapid point-of-care test, the space-coded microchip (SC-Chip) offers a streamlined workflow [71].

• Chip Preparation: The SC-Chip is fabricated with one sample inlet and 12 outlet reaction wells. Each of the 9 target wells is pre-loaded with a specific crRNA designed for a different respiratory virus (e.g., FLUAV, FLUBV, SARS-CoV-2, HRSV).
• On-Chip Amplification and Detection: The clinical sample is mixed with recombinase polymerase amplification (RPA) reagents and Cas12a enzyme. This mixture is injected into the chip. The RPA reaction occurs, rapidly amplifying any viral target present. If a target is present, the Cas12a/crRNA complex binds to it, activating the enzyme's collateral activity. This cleaves a fluorescent reporter in the corresponding well.
• Result Visualization: Within 40 minutes, the results are read by observing fluorescence in the wells. A strong green fluorescence in a well indicates a positive detection for the specific virus assigned to that location, providing a simple, spatial readout [71].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Key Research Reagent Solutions

Successful implementation of these advanced detection platforms relies on a suite of specialized reagents. The following table details essential components and their functions.

Table 2: Key Research Reagent Solutions for NGS and CRISPR Assays

Reagent / Material	Function	Application Context
Lyophilization-Ready Master Mixes	Stable, room-temperature storage for assays; simplifies logistics and use in field settings [68]	Point-of-care and at-home molecular tests (e.g., RPA/LAMP kits)
High-Sensitivity Cas Enzymes	Engineered Cas13, Cas12, or Cas9 proteins that provide the core detection mechanism by cleaving target nucleic acids and reporters [67] [71]	CRISPR-based diagnostics (e.g., mCARMEN, SC-Chip)
Target-Specific crRNAs	Short RNA guides that program Cas enzymes to recognize and bind to unique sequences of pathogen genomes, ensuring detection specificity [67] [71]	Multiplexed pathogen and variant identification
PolyU-FAM Fluorescent Reporter	A custom reporter molecule (e.g., 6-Uracil-FAM) that is preferentially cleaved by LwaCas13a, leading to enhanced sensitivity and a stronger signal [67]	Cas13-based detection assays (e.g., mCARMEN)
Specimen-Specific Master Mixes	Enable direct amplification from crude samples (e.g., saliva), minimizing sample preparation steps and accelerating turnaround time [68]	Direct-to-PCR and rapid sample preparation workflows
NGS Sample Prep Kits	Kits for library construction that are ambient-temperature stable, simplifying storage and shipping while maintaining sensitivity and reproducibility [68]	Metagenomic and targeted NGS for pathogen discovery

NGS and CRISPR-based assays are complementary technologies that address different facets of the challenge posed by emerging pathogens. NGS remains the undisputed gold standard for unbiased discovery, comprehensive genomic characterization, and detailed surveillance of viral evolution. In contrast, CRISPR-based platforms like mCARMEN and the SC-Chip excel in scenarios demanding rapid, sensitive, multiplexed, and cost-effective detection of predefined targets, making them invaluable for outbreak management and point-of-care testing. The integration of these technologies with microfluidics and advanced reagent solutions is reshaping the landscape of respiratory disease management, enabling faster diagnosis, more targeted treatment, and improved global outbreak response [67] [68] [71]. The choice between them should be guided by the specific requirements of the clinical or research question at hand.

Overcoming Diagnostic Challenges: Co-infections, Data Interpretation, and Assay Optimization

The epidemiology of respiratory viruses has undergone significant transformations, particularly in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. Understanding the complex dynamics of viral co-infections and shedding profiles has become increasingly important for accurate diagnostic interpretation, effective public health surveillance, and informed therapeutic development. The pandemic period and subsequent relaxation of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) have altered traditional circulation patterns of respiratory pathogens, creating new challenges for researchers and clinicians in parsing complex infection data [16]. This guide provides a structured framework for interpreting these complex results, with a specific focus on detection rate analysis for multiple respiratory viruses, offering comparative experimental data and methodological insights tailored for research scientists and drug development professionals.

The shifting viral landscape is characterized by altered seasonal patterns, changing age distribution of infections, and evolving viral shedding dynamics across different SARS-CoV-2 variants. These changes have direct implications for diagnostic strategies, treatment protocols, and public health interventions. Furthermore, the emergence of wastewater-based epidemiology as a complementary surveillance tool has introduced new dimensions to our understanding of viral transmission dynamics, while also presenting unique interpretive challenges related to shedding characteristics and their impact on epidemiological inferences [73].

Comparative Analysis of Respiratory Virus Detection and Co-infection Patterns

Detection Rates Across Population Subgroups

Recent studies have revealed significant disparities in respiratory virus detection rates between different age groups and temporal periods relative to the COVID-19 pandemic. The table below summarizes key findings from multiple studies investigating these patterns.

Table 1: Comparative Detection Rates of Respiratory Viruses Across Populations

Study Population/Period	Sample Size	Overall Detection Rate	Key Pathogens Identified	Noteworthy Trends
General Population (2020-2024) [16]	748 patients	43.6%	SARS-CoV-2 (pandemic), Rhinovirus/Enterovirus (post-pandemic)	Significantly higher detection in children (71.5%) vs. adults (40%); Co-infections more frequent in children (14.1% vs. 2.7%)
Pediatric ARIs (2018-2022) [74]	9,782 children	16.35% (2018-2019), 17.06% (2020-2022)	RSV, ADV, PIV-3, Flu-B	RSV detection significantly increased during pandemic; Other viruses showed reduction
SARS-CoV-2 Positive Participants (2022/2023) [75]	1,017 SARS-CoV-2 positive samples	11% co-infection rate	Rhinovirus (59%), seasonal coronaviruses (15%), Adenovirus (7%)	Co-infections did not lead to more severe disease compared to SARS-CoV-2 mono-infections
Pediatric ARTIs (2020-2024) [76]	42,379 children	54.0% (pre-zero COVID), 80.7% (post-zero COVID)	MP (20.2%), HRV (19.5%), RSV (15.1%), HPIV (6.9%)	Marked increases in MP (322.7%), HRV (39.0%), and RSV (27.8%) post-zero COVID policy

Temporal Shifts in Viral Epidemiology

The COVID-19 pandemic and associated public health measures created a natural experiment that revealed important insights about respiratory virus interactions and population immunity dynamics. A study analyzing 748 nasopharyngeal swab samples between March 2020 and November 2024 documented a dramatic shift in dominant pathogens before and after the pandemic period. During the peak pandemic phase, SARS-CoV-2 accounted for 65.5% of positive cases, while in the post-pandemic period, non-SARS-CoV-2 infections dominated, with Rhinovirus/Enterovirus representing 71.5% of positive samples [16]. This transition highlights the complex interplay between different respiratory viruses and the impact of population immunity on circulation patterns.

The pediatric population has demonstrated particular vulnerability to these shifting epidemiological patterns. Research from East China involving 9,782 pediatric patients hospitalized for acute respiratory infections revealed significant changes in respiratory virus detection between pre-pandemic (2018-2019) and pandemic (2020-2022) periods. While overall detection rates remained relatively stable (16.35% vs. 17.06%), the distribution of specific pathogens changed markedly, with RSV detection significantly increasing while Adenovirus (ADV), Parainfluenza-2 (PIV-2), Parainfluenza-3 (PIV-3), and Influenza-B showed reductions [74]. These findings suggest that public health interventions affected transmission patterns differently across various respiratory pathogens.

Table 2: Impact of COVID-19 Policy Changes on Pediatric Respiratory Pathogen Detection [76]

Pathogen	Detection Increase After Zero-COVID Policy Ended	Age Group with Greatest Increase	Magnitude of Increase in High-Impact Group
RSV	27.8%	0-2 years	88.8% (OR: 2.3, 95% CI: 2.2-2.5)
HRV	39.0%	0-2 years	50.0% (OR: 1.6, 95% CI: 1.5-1.7)
HPIV	12.3%	0-2 years	69.6% (OR: 1.8, 95% CI: 1.6-2.0)
MP	322.7%	3-5 years	316.9% (OR: 5.5, 95% CI: 4.9-6.1)

Viral Shedding Dynamics: Implications for Detection and Interpretation

SARS-CoV-2 Shedding Profiles Across Variants

Viral shedding dynamics significantly impact detection capabilities and transmission potential, with important variations observed across different SARS-CoV-2 variants. A comparative study of 56 patients infected with the Delta variant versus 56 with the original SARS-CoV-2 strain revealed substantial differences in shedding characteristics. The Delta variant was associated with a significantly longer virus shedding time (median 41.5 days) compared to the original strain (median 18.5 days), despite Delta patients presenting with fewer and less severe clinical symptoms [77]. This dissociation between symptom presentation and shedding duration has important implications for infection control policies and diagnostic testing strategies.

Further analysis identified independent risk factors associated with prolonged viral shedding. Multiple linear regression demonstrated that both the viral strain (Delta variant) and lower lymphocyte counts were significantly correlated with extended shedding duration [77]. These findings suggest that host immune response factors interact with viral characteristics to determine shedding trajectories, highlighting the importance of considering both pathogen and host variables when interpreting detection results.

Figure 1: Viral Shedding Dynamics Across SARS-CoV-2 Variants

Temporal Patterns and Presymptomatic Transmission

Fundamental research on SARS-CoV-2 shedding patterns has revealed distinctive temporal dynamics with important implications for detection strategies. Analysis of viral load in throat swabs from 94 laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 patients demonstrated that viral loads peak at or around the time of symptom onset, followed by a gradual decrease toward detection limits at approximately 21 days [78]. This pattern differs significantly from related coronaviruses like SARS, where infectiousness typically peaks later in the clinical course.

Perhaps more importantly, separate analysis of 77 transmission pairs revealed that infectiousness begins 2-3 days before symptom onset, with an estimated 44% (95% CI: 30-57%) of secondary infections occurring during the presymptomatic stage [78]. This substantial presymptomatic transmission potential has profound implications for control measures, as it reduces the effectiveness of symptom-based containment strategies. These findings underscore the importance of accounting for temporal dynamics in both diagnostic testing and public health interventions.

Methodological Approaches for Co-infection and Shedding Analysis

Detection Technologies and Experimental Protocols

Advanced molecular diagnostics have become essential tools for unraveling the complexity of respiratory virus co-infections and shedding dynamics. The following experimental protocols represent methodologies commonly employed in recent research:

Multiplex PCR Panel Testing [16]:

• Sample Collection: Nasopharyngeal swabs collected from patients with acute respiratory infection symptoms within seven days of symptom onset
• Detection Method: QIAstat-Dx Respiratory Panel Test (Qiagen, Germany), a multiplex real-time PCR assay
• Targets: Simultaneous detection of 19 viral and 3 bacterial targets including Adenovirus; Coronaviruses (229E, HKU1, NL63, OC43); Human metapneumovirus A/B; Influenza A (subtypes H1N1/2009, H3, H1), Influenza B; Parainfluenza viruses 1-4; Rhinovirus/Enterovirus; RSV A/B; SARS-CoV-2; Bordetella pertussis; Legionella pneumophila; Mycoplasma pneumoniae
• Analysis: Statistical evaluation using chi-square tests for associations, multivariate logistic regression to identify predictors of viral positivity

Direct Immunofluorescence Technique [74]:

• Sample Processing: Nasal swab samples vortexed for 30 seconds, centrifuged at 1000×g for 10 minutes
• Cell Preparation: Cell suspension applied to 8-well chamber slides with fluorescent antibodies
• Incubation: 37.0°C for 30 minutes followed by washing and blocking
• Detection: Fluorescence microscopy examination; positive result defined as ≥2 apple green fluorescent cells per field at 200× magnification

Wastewater-Based Epidemiology [73]:

• Sample Collection: 24-hour composite wastewater samples collected from defined sewersheds
• Modeling Framework: SEIR-V model with temperature variation accounting for viral shedding from both infectious and recovered populations
• Key Parameters: Shedding rates from infectious (βI) and recovered (βR) populations; temperature-dependent viral decay; fecal load per day (α)

Analytical Modeling Approaches

Sophisticated statistical and mathematical models have been developed to interpret complex respiratory virus data:

Time-Series Analysis and Forecasting [16]:

• Approach: Autoregressive Integrated Moving Average (ARIMA) models applied to monthly case counts
• Parameter Selection: Optimal parameters selected using Akaike Information Criterion (AIC)
• Application: Pathogen-specific models for SARS-CoV-2, Rhinovirus/Enterovirus, and RSV with 36-month forecasting horizons

Wastewater Viral Dynamics Modeling [79]:

• Framework: Mathematical models to estimate variant selection advantages from wastewater data
• Key Finding: Estimates of selection advantage are robust to differences in shedding profiles between variants
• Application: Demonstrated unbiased estimation of variant growth advantages even with differing shedding characteristics

Figure 2: Integrated Methodological Framework for Co-infection and Shedding Analysis

Research Reagent Solutions for Respiratory Virus Detection

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for Respiratory Virus Detection and Characterization

Reagent/Platform	Manufacturer	Primary Function	Application in Co-infection/Shedding Studies
QIAstat-Dx Respiratory Panel Test	Qiagen	Multiplex real-time PCR detection of respiratory pathogens	Simultaneous detection of 19 viruses and 3 bacteria in co-infection studies [16]
FITC-labeled virus-specific monoclonal antibodies	Shanghai Haide Diagnostic	Immunofluorescence detection of viral antigens	Direct detection of RSV, ADV, Flu A/B, PIV1-3 in clinical samples [74]
Applied Biosystems 3500 Dx analyzer	Thermo Fisher Scientific	Real-time PCR amplification and detection	Detection of multiple respiratory pathogens using TaqMan probes [76]
X-ABT Multiplex real-time RT-PCR assay	Beijing X-ABT	Simultaneous detection of 9 respiratory pathogens	Identification of RSV, FluA, FluB, HPIV, ADV, HRV, BoV, HMPV, MP in pediatric cases [76]
SEIR-V model with temperature variation	N/A	Mathematical modeling of wastewater data	Integration of shedding dynamics from infectious and recovered populations [73]

Discussion: Integrated Interpretation Framework

Navigating Complex Co-infection Data

The interpretation of co-infection data requires careful consideration of several interrelated factors. First, age-specific patterns must be accounted for, as children demonstrate both higher overall detection rates and greater likelihood of viral co-infections compared to adults [16]. Second, temporal changes in the respiratory virome following the COVID-19 pandemic have created shifting baseline expectations, with some pathogens exhibiting resurgence while others remain suppressed [76]. Third, methodological approaches significantly influence co-infection detection, with multiplex PCR panels demonstrating superior sensitivity for identifying multiple simultaneous infections compared to traditional diagnostic methods.

An important finding from recent research is that SARS-CoV-2 co-infections with common cold viruses such as rhinovirus or seasonal coronaviruses do not necessarily lead to more severe disease outcomes compared to SARS-CoV-2 mono-infections [75]. This somewhat counterintuitive result highlights the complex nature of viral interactions within the host and suggests that factors beyond simple pathogen coexistence determine clinical severity. Furthermore, evidence indicates possible viral interference, with lower odds of SARS-CoV-2 co-infection with seasonal coronavirus or rhinovirus compared to the odds of the respective non-SARS-CoV-2 mono-infections [75].

Accounting for Shedding Dynamics in Detection Interpretation

Viral shedding characteristics present particular challenges for accurate interpretation of detection data. The prolonged shedding period associated with the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2 [77] means that RNA detection may not necessarily indicate active transmissibility, particularly later in the infection course. This dissociation between detectable viral material and infectious potential complicates both clinical management and public health interventions.

Wastewater-based epidemiology introduces additional complexity in interpreting shedding data. As outbreaks progress, the viral load from recovered individuals can surpass that from the infectious population, potentially leading to misinterpretation of transmission dynamics if not properly accounted for in analytical models [73]. However, recent research indicates that estimates of variant selection advantages derived from wastewater data remain robust to differences in shedding profiles between variants [79], supporting the utility of this surveillance approach even as new variants with altered shedding characteristics emerge.

Interpreting complex results in respiratory virus detection requires a multifaceted approach that acknowledges the dynamic interplay between pathogen characteristics, host factors, and methodological considerations. Based on current evidence, the following strategic approaches are recommended:

First, implement age-stratified detection frameworks that account for the significantly different co-infection rates and pathogen profiles observed across age groups, particularly the heightened vulnerability and co-infection susceptibility in pediatric populations.

Second, integrate temporal dynamics into interpretive algorithms, recognizing that shedding duration and detection windows vary substantially across viral variants and individual host factors, with important implications for distinguishing active infection from prolonged RNA shedding.

Third, employ orthogonal detection methodologies when investigating complex co-infection scenarios, as no single platform optimally detects all potential pathogens, and method-specific limitations can influence result interpretation.

Finally, incorporate wastewater surveillance data as a complementary population-level tool that can provide early warning of emerging variants and shifting transmission dynamics, while acknowledging and accounting for the complex relationship between shedding characteristics and detection signals.

As the field of respiratory virus diagnostics continues to evolve, maintaining flexibility in interpretive frameworks and regularly updating analytical approaches based on emerging evidence will be essential for accurate understanding of co-infection dynamics and shedding characteristics in both research and clinical settings.

The diagnostic accuracy and reliability of respiratory virus detection are fundamentally rooted in the pre-analytical phase, which encompasses specimen collection, transport, and storage. In research settings, particularly for detection rate analysis of multiple respiratory viruses, failure to standardize these variables can introduce significant bias, compromise data integrity, and lead to erroneous conclusions about viral epidemiology and pathogen interactions. Evidence suggests that pre-analytical handling can alter the detectable viral RNA copy numbers and influence whether a virus remains infectious in culture, directly impacting the sensitivity and specificity of downstream assays [80] [81]. This guide provides a systematic comparison of collection devices and transport conditions, supported by experimental data, to inform robust experimental design for researchers and scientists.

Comparative Analysis of Sample Collection Devices

The choice of sample collection device is a critical first step. Different swabs and transport media can vary significantly in their ability to preserve viral nucleic acids and maintain viral viability. The table below summarizes key performance characteristics of various commercial devices based on experimental findings.

Table 1: Comparison of Commercial Specimen Collection and Transport Systems

Device Category	Key Characteristics	Viral RNA Stability (at RT & 37°C)	Viral Infectivity Preservation	Best Use Cases
Transport Swab Systems (e.g., for viral culture)	Designed to support viral or bacterial growth [81].	Varies by brand; significant RNA reduction at 37°C found in 3 of 4 tested systems over 96 hours [81].	Maintains viral infectivity, making it suitable for culture-based methods [80] [81].	Studies requiring viral isolation, propagation, or infectivity assays.
Saliva Collection Devices	Some contain inactivating additives [80].	Generally high stability at room temperature (RT) for up to 96 hours [80] [81].	Inactivates enveloped viruses (e.g., Influenza, RSV, SARS-CoV-2) immediately or reduces infectivity significantly [80].	Molecular studies (e.g., NAAT) where operator safety and RNA stability are priorities.
Flocked Swabs in Universal Transport Medium (UTM)	Composed of perpendicular synthetic fibers for superior specimen release [82].	Considered the standard for nucleic acid stability when transported promptly [82].	Preserves infectivity for a range of viruses when stored at 4°C [83].	Broad application for both molecular and culture-based detection in a clinical setting.

Experimental Protocols for Evaluating Pre-Analytical Variables

To generate the comparative data presented in this guide, researchers have employed standardized experimental protocols. The following methodology outlines a typical approach for assessing the impact of pre-analytical variables on viral detection.

Protocol: Evaluating Viral Stability in Transport Media

Objective: To determine the effect of storage duration and temperature on the stability of viral RNA and infectivity in different transport media.

Materials:

• Viruses of Interest: Enveloped (e.g., Influenza A/B, RSV A/B, SARS-CoV-2) and non-enveloped (e.g., Adenovirus) viruses [80].
• Collection Devices: Multiple commercially available transport swab systems and saliva collection devices.
• Quantitative Assay: Reverse Transcription Quantitative Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-qPCR) for RNA virus detection.
• Cell Culture: Appropriate cell lines (e.g., A549 human lung carcinoma epithelial cells) for infectivity assays via plaque assay or observation of cytopathic effect (CPE) [80].

Methodology:

• Spiking: Spike each collection device with a known titer of the target virus(s).
• Storage: Aliquot the spiked media and store them under different conditions:
  • Temperatures: Room temperature (RT, ~20-25°C), 37°C, and 4°C (refrigerated) as a control.
  • Durations: 0 h (baseline), 24 h, 48 h, 72 h, and 96 h [80] [81].
• Analysis:
  • RNA Stability: At each time point, extract nucleic acids and perform RT-qPCR. The cycle threshold (Ct) values or RNA copy numbers are compared to baseline to determine significant changes [81].
  • Infectivity: At each time point, inoculate the stored media onto susceptible cell cultures. Monitor for CPE or quantify plaque-forming units (PFUs) to assess the reduction in viral replication capacity [80].

The workflow for this experimental protocol is summarized in the diagram below.

Impact of Storage Conditions on Viral Detection

Time and temperature during specimen transport and storage are critical variables that can degrade viral targets. The following table synthesizes experimental data on how these factors affect the detection of respiratory viruses.

Table 2: Impact of Storage Conditions on Viral RNA Stability and Infectivity

Storage Condition	Effect on Viral RNA	Effect on Viral Infectivity	Research Implications
Room Temperature (RT)	Stable in most systems for 24-96 h [80] [81] [84]. One swab system showed significant RNA loss after 96h [81].	Varies by device. Saliva devices with inactivating additives reduce infectivity, while standard swab systems preserve it [80].	Suitable for RNA-based studies with prompt transport. Device choice is critical for culture work.
37°C (Elevated Temp)	Significant reduction in detectable RNA in 3 out of 4 swab systems over 96 h. Saliva devices showed more stability, with one exception [81].	Not recommended for infectivity studies due to rapid degradation.	Highlights risk of RNA degradation and false negatives in hot climates or without temperature control.
4°C (Refrigeration)	Recommended for optimal specimen integrity when testing is delayed [82] [83].	Preserves infectivity for several days, making it suitable for viral culture [83].	The standard for maintaining both nucleic acid integrity and viral viability during short-term storage.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Successful detection rate analysis relies on a suite of carefully selected reagents and materials. The following table details key components for managing pre-analytical variables.

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Materials for Respiratory Virus Studies

Item	Function & Rationale	Key Considerations
Flocked Swabs	Sample collection from nasopharyngeal mucosa. Superior release of cellular material compared to traditional spun fiber swabs [85] [82].	Use synthetic tips (Dacron/rayon) with plastic/wire shafts. Avoid calcium alginate or wooden shafts, which can inhibit PCR [85] [82] [83].
Universal/Viral Transport Media (UTM/VTM)	Stabilizes viruses and nucleic acids during transport. Preents drying and inhibits bacterial/fungal overgrowth [82].	Buffered salt solutions with protein stabilizers and antimicrobials. Essential for both molecular and culture-based methods [82] [83].
Inactivating Transport Media	Inactivates viruses upon collection, enhancing laboratory safety for personnel [80].	Ideal for RT-PCR/PCR studies where infectivity is not required. Can be specific for enveloped vs. non-enveloped viruses [80].
Quantitative RT-PCR Assays	Gold standard for detection and quantification of viral RNA/DNA load due to high sensitivity and specificity [86] [82].	Cycle threshold (Ct) values can serve as a proxy for viral load, useful for stability studies and correlating with disease severity.
Cell Culture Systems	Essential for assessing viral infectivity, propagation for downstream analyses, and antigenic characterization.	Requires specific, susceptible cell lines (e.g., A549, MDCK). More time-consuming than molecular methods but provides functional data [80].

The data presented unequivocally demonstrate that pre-analytical variables are not merely procedural details but active determinants of experimental outcomes in respiratory virus research. The choice between a transport system that preserves infectivity versus one that prioritizes nucleic acid stability and safety must be aligned with the study's primary objectives [80] [81]. Furthermore, the documented binary property of virus-virus interactions, where infection with one virus can temporarily suppress or enhance the detection of another, adds another layer of complexity to detection rate analysis [6]. Therefore, a rigorous research protocol must incorporate and report standardized pre-analytical conditions—including the specific collection device, transport time, storage temperature, and criteria for specimen validity—to ensure the generation of reliable, comparable, and meaningful data in the field of respiratory virus epidemiology and pathogenesis.

Strategies for Differentiating Pathogens with Overlapping Symptom Profiles (e.g., ILI)

Influenza-like illness (ILI) represents a significant global health challenge, defined by syndromic surveillance systems as a group of symptoms including fever, cough, and/or sore throat [87]. In the United States alone, ILI impacts between 9 to 49 million people annually, yet this clinical syndrome can be caused by numerous respiratory viruses with differing parameters and outbreak properties [87]. While tracking ILI as a single entity provides valuable public health information, this approach obscures crucial differences between the underlying viral pathogens, including their transmission dynamics, severity, and optimal intervention strategies. The fundamental diagnostic challenge lies in the substantial overlap in clinical presentations among various respiratory viruses, which complicates both clinical management and public health response. This comparison guide examines current and emerging diagnostic technologies capable of differentiating between pathogens causing ILI, with particular focus on their performance characteristics, operational considerations, and applicability within research settings focused on detection rate analysis for multiple respiratory viruses.

Diagnostic Platforms for Pathogen Differentiation

Table 1: Comparison of Diagnostic Platforms for Respiratory Pathogen Detection

Platform Type	Key Characteristics	Targets Detected	Turnaround Time	Sensitivity Range	Specificity Range
Digital PCR (dPCR)	Absolute quantification without standard curves; partitions samples into thousands of nanoreactions	Influenza A/B, RSV, SARS-CoV-2	2-3 hours	80.7%-98.2% [88]	99.0%-99.8% [88]
Multiplex Real-Time PCR	Standard curve-dependent quantification; simultaneous detection of multiple targets	16-23 viral targets depending on panel [89]	~2 hours	96.6% (Anyplex II RV16) [89]	99.8% (Anyplex II RV16) [89]
Targeted Next-Generation Sequencing (tNGS)	High-throughput simultaneous identification of broad pathogen spectrum; amplicon-based	Viruses, bacteria, fungi, atypical organisms [90]	24-48 hours	>88% concordance with RT-qPCR for COVID-19/influenza [90]	Higher than conventional methods for fungal detection [90]
FilmArray Respiratory Panel 2.1 plus	Fully automated nested PCR in closed system; integrated extraction/amplification	23 targets (19 viral, 4 bacterial) [89]	45 minutes	98.2% [89]	99.0% [89]

Performance Characteristics in Co-circulation Scenarios

During the 2023-2024 "tripledemic" period marked by concurrent circulation of influenza, RSV, and SARS-CoV-2, digital PCR demonstrated particular utility for precise viral load quantification [88]. In a comparative study of 123 respiratory samples stratified by cycle threshold (Ct) values, dPCR showed superior accuracy for high viral loads of influenza A, influenza B, and SARS-CoV-2, and for medium loads of RSV [88]. The technology exhibited greater consistency and precision than Real-Time RT-PCR, especially in quantifying intermediate viral levels, though its routine implementation is currently limited by higher costs and reduced automation [88].

Multiplex PCR platforms show varying performance across different pathogen targets. In a 2024 comparison of three commercial systems, the Seegene Anyplex II RV16 demonstrated 96.6% sensitivity and 99.8% specificity overall, but the QIAstat-Dx Respiratory SARS-CoV-2 Panel showed notably reduced sensitivity (80.7%), particularly for coronaviruses (41.7% missed detection) and parainfluenza viruses (28.6% missed detection) [89]. The FilmArray Respiratory Panel 2.1 plus achieved high overall sensitivity (98.2%) but had lower target specificity for rhinovirus/enterovirus (88.4%) [89].

Targeted NGS has demonstrated exceptional capability in detecting mixed infections, revealing significantly higher proportions of viral co-infections compared to conventional methods [90]. In a multicenter retrospective analysis of 834 patients, tNGS identified complex infection patterns, including multiple respiratory viruses, herpesviruses, and combinations of viral with bacterial and fungal pathogens [90]. The most frequently identified viruses by tNGS were Epstein-Barr virus, SARS-CoV-2, herpes simplex virus type 1, influenza A virus, and rhinovirus [90].

Experimental Protocols for Detection Rate Analysis

Sample Collection and Processing Workflows

Table 2: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Respiratory Pathogen Detection

Research Reagent	Manufacturer	Function/Application	Key Features
Allplex Respiratory Panel 1A, 2, and 3	Seegene	Multiplex Real-Time RT-PCR detection	Simultaneous detection of major respiratory pathogens; includes internal controls
KingFisher Flex System with MagMax Viral/Pathogen Kit	Thermo Fisher Scientific	Automated nucleic acid extraction	High-throughput extraction; compatible with various sample types
Respiratory Pathogen Microorganism Multiplex Testing Kit	KingCreate	Targeted NGS library preparation	Multiplex PCR preamplification; tailored for respiratory pathogens
QIAcuity Digital PCR System	Qiagen	Nanowell-based digital PCR	Partitions samples into ~26,000 wells; absolute quantification without standard curves
Xpert Flu Assay	Cepheid	Portable PCR-based nucleic acid testing	Rapid turnaround (approximately 45 minutes); sensitivity and specificity >98% [91]

Methodological Standards for Comparative Studies

For laboratory-confirmed influenza detection, optimal protocols incorporate automated nucleic acid extraction systems such as the STARlet Seegene platform or KingFisher Flex system with optimized viral RNA/DNA kits [88] [89]. For dPCR applications, the QIAcuity platform employs nanowell technology with approximately 26,000 partitions per sample, with primer-probe mixes specifically optimized for multiplex detection of influenza A, influenza B, RSV, and SARS-CoV-2 [88]. Validation studies should include internal controls to monitor extraction efficiency and amplification inhibition, particularly important for respiratory samples with variable mucus content and potential PCR inhibitors [88].

In tNGS protocols, automated nucleic acid extraction using systems such as the MagPure Viral DNA/RNA Kit followed by reverse transcription, multiplex PCR preamplification, and library preparation with pathogen-specific panels provides comprehensive detection [90]. Bioinformatic analysis typically includes base calling (bcl2fastq), adaptor trimming and quality filtering (fastp), and mapping to curated pathogen databases using Bowtie2 in "very sensitive" mode [90]. Results are normalized to standardized read counts (e.g., reads per kilobase per 100,000 reads) for comparative analysis across samples [90].

Analysis of Detection Rates Across Platforms

Quantitative Performance Metrics

Table 3: Detection Rate Comparison Across Diagnostic Platforms

Pathogen Category	Specific Pathogens	Digital PCR Detection Rate	Multiplex PCR Detection Rate	tNGS Detection Rate
Influenza Viruses	Influenza A/H1N1	Superior accuracy for high viral loads [88]	96.6% sensitivity (Anyplex II RV16) [89]	>88% concordance with RT-qPCR [90]
	Influenza A/H3N2	Superior accuracy for high viral loads [88]	96.6% sensitivity (Anyplex II RV16) [89]	>88% concordance with RT-qPCR [90]
	Influenza B	Superior accuracy for high viral loads [88]	96.6% sensitivity (Anyplex II RV16) [89]	>88% concordance with RT-qPCR [90]
Other Respiratory Viruses	RSV	Superior accuracy for medium viral loads [88]	96.6% sensitivity (Anyplex II RV16) [89]	Frequently detected [90]
	SARS-CoV-2	Superior accuracy for high viral loads [88]	96.6% sensitivity (Anyplex II RV16) [89]	Second most frequently identified [90]
	Rhinovirus	Limited data	96.6% sensitivity (Anyplex II RV16) [89]	Among top five detected viruses [90]
Co-infections	Viral-Viral	Technical capability demonstrated [88]	6 detected in study population [88]	Significantly higher detection vs conventional methods [90]
	Viral-Bacterial/Fungal	Not assessed	Not designed for bacterial/fungal targets [89]	Significantly higher detection vs conventional methods [90]

Impact on Understanding ILI Epidemiology

Advanced diagnostic technologies have revealed the complex ecology of respiratory pathogens underlying ILI presentations. Conventional surveillance systems that track ILI as a single syndrome inevitably conflain distinct pathogens with different epidemiological patterns [87] [92]. During typical influenza seasons in the United States, the proportion of ILI attributable to influenza infection is highly variable and usually peaks at approximately 30%, meaning that the ILI time series mostly reflects the abundance of other pathogens [92]. This has significant implications for public health response, as early increases in ILI indicators can obscure the actual beginning of influenza season, potentially affecting vaccination program timing and other interventions [92].

The implementation of precise pathogen differentiation has demonstrated that viruses responsible for ILI differ substantially in their parameter values, timing, prevalence, and proportional contributions to overall disease burden [87]. This refined understanding enables more accurate modeling of transmission dynamics, improved assessment of intervention effectiveness, and better preparation for emerging pandemic threats [87]. Furthermore, the ability to detect mixed infections has clinical significance, as respiratory viral infections can damage epithelial cells and suppress host immunity, thereby predisposing patients to secondary bacterial or fungal infections [90].

Implications for Research and Public Health Surveillance

The differentiation of pathogens causing ILI represents a critical advancement in respiratory disease research and public health practice. Moving beyond syndromic surveillance to pathogen-specific identification enables more accurate assessment of disease burden, more targeted control measures, and improved pandemic preparedness. For researchers focusing on detection rate analysis, the selection of diagnostic platforms involves careful consideration of performance characteristics, throughput requirements, and cost constraints.

Digital PCR provides superior quantification accuracy, particularly valuable for viral load dynamics studies and therapeutic monitoring [88]. Multiplex PCR panels offer a balanced approach for routine surveillance with rapid turnaround times and comprehensive coverage of major respiratory viruses [89]. Targeted NGS reveals the fullest spectrum of pathogens, including mixed infections and unexpected organisms, making it particularly valuable for complex cases and immunocompromised populations [90].

Future directions in ILI pathogen differentiation will likely involve the integration of multiple technologies, leveraging the strengths of each platform to provide comprehensive diagnostic information. Additionally, the development of standardized protocols and reference materials will enhance comparability across studies and surveillance systems. As these technologies continue to evolve and become more accessible, their implementation will progressively transform our understanding of respiratory disease epidemiology and improve clinical management of patients presenting with influenza-like illness.

Optimizing Reagents and Workflows for High-Sensitivity Multiplex Assays

Multiplex assays have revolutionized diagnostic and research capabilities by enabling the simultaneous detection of multiple analytes in a single reaction. These advanced assays are transforming how laboratories perform complex analyses across healthcare, biotech, and diagnostics sectors, allowing for comprehensive pathogen identification, biomarker discovery, and therapeutic monitoring [93]. The global multiplex assays market, valued at approximately $1.74 billion in 2024, reflects this growing adoption, with projections indicating it will reach $6.75 billion by 2034, expanding at a compound annual growth rate of 14.52% [94].

However, achieving high sensitivity and specificity in multiplex formats presents significant technical challenges that require careful reagent and workflow optimization. Unlike single-plex methods, multiplex assays involve simultaneous detection of multiple targets within one reaction, demanding precise calibration to avoid cross-reactivity, signal interference, and analyte competition [95]. The complexity of assay design and optimization represents a substantial barrier to clinical adoption and assay scalability, as developing these assays requires an in-depth understanding of antibody-antigen interactions, epitope compatibility, and dynamic range balancing [95]. This comprehensive guide examines current optimization strategies, compares leading methodological approaches, and provides detailed experimental protocols to enhance assay performance for respiratory virus detection research.

Key Optimization Parameters for Multiplex Assays

Reagent Efficiency and Pooling Strategies

Sample pooling represents a fundamental strategy for multiplying testing capacity while optimizing reagent use. Recent research has developed mathematical models to determine the optimal pooling conditions that maximize both reagent efficiency and analytical sensitivity. A comprehensive evaluation of 30 samples tested individually and in pools ranging from 2 to 12 samples revealed that the most significant gain in efficiency occurs with 4-sample pools, while pools greater than 8 samples yield no considerable reagent savings [96].

The relationship between pool size and sensitivity follows an inverse correlation, with sensitivity significantly dropping to 87.18%-92.52% for a 4-sample pool and reaching as low as 77.09%-80.87% in a 12-sample pooling format [96]. These findings establish that 4-sample pooling represents the optimal balance for maximizing reagent efficiency while maintaining acceptable analytical sensitivity. These considerations are essential for increasing testing capacity and efficiently detecting and containing contagious pathogens in both research and clinical settings.

Technological Platforms and Detection Systems

The core of multiplex assays relies on sophisticated hardware and software components. The hardware typically includes microarray chips, bead-based platforms, or microfluidic devices designed to handle small sample volumes with high precision [93]. Detection systems, such as fluorescence or chemiluminescence readers, are integrated to identify and quantify multiple analytes simultaneously. Software plays a crucial role in data acquisition, processing, and analysis, with advanced algorithms interpreting complex signals, differentiating overlapping data, and generating meaningful results [93].

Flow cytometry currently dominates the multiplex assays market with more than 36% of revenue share in 2024, while multiplex real-time PCR is estimated to be the fastest-growing segment during the forecast period [94]. Each technological platform offers distinct advantages: planar assays hold nearly 30% of the market thanks to high throughput and cost-effectiveness, while bead-based platforms like Luminex's xMAP technology use color-coded beads to capture different analytes [93] [97]. More recent innovations include chip-based and microfluidic platforms that gain traction by reducing reagent volumes and assay durations [98].

Table 1: Comparison of Multiplex Assay Platforms and Their Performance Characteristics

Technology Platform	Market Share (2024)	Growth Projection	Key Advantages	Optimal Applications
Flow Cytometry	>36% [94]	Steady growth	Measures multiple parameters on same sample	Functional studies, immunophenotyping, cell analysis
Multiplex Real-time PCR	Not specified	Fastest-growing [94]	More information with less sample, cost-effective	Pathogen identification, mutation analysis
Protein Microarrays	54% of type segment [94]	Sustained adoption	Measures multiple proteins simultaneously	Biomarker discovery, therapeutic monitoring
Planar Assays	~30% [97]	Stable utilization	High throughput, cost-effective	High-volume screening applications
Microfluidic Devices	Emerging segment	Growing traction [98]	Reduces reagent volumes and assay durations	Point-of-care testing, resource-limited settings

Assay Design and Validation Considerations

The development of highly sensitive multiplex assays requires meticulous attention to design parameters and validation protocols. A novel 9-plex one-step RT-ddPCR assay for detecting high-risk viruses, including SARS-CoV-2 (N1 and N2 genes), Influenza A and B, Respiratory Syncytial Virus, and Hepatitis A and E, demonstrated excellent analytical performance with detection limits ranging from 1.4 to 2.9 copies/μL depending on the viral target [99]. This assay utilized a strategic approach to primer and probe design by creating two distinct primer/probe mixtures (ppmix A and ppmix B) with different final concentrations (900 nM/300 nM versus 400 nM/100 nM) to form clearly separated clusters in each channel of a 2D scatter plot, thereby enabling effective multiplexing [99].

Another innovative approach involved the development of a fluorescence melting curve analysis-based (FMCA-based) multiplex PCR assay for simultaneous detection of six respiratory pathogens. This method demonstrated high sensitivity with limits of detection between 4.94 and 14.03 copies/μL and exceptional precision (intra-/inter-assay coefficients of variation ≤ 0.70% and ≤ 0.50%) with no cross-reactivity [51]. The assay incorporated a unique probe design featuring base-free tetrahydrofuran (THF) residues at corresponding positions to minimize the impact of known or potential base mismatches among different subtypes on the probe's melting temperature, thereby enhancing probe-target hybridization stability across subtype variants [51].

Comparative Performance Analysis of Multiplex Assays

Sensitivity and Specificity Metrics

Direct comparison of multiplex assay performance reveals significant variations in sensitivity and specificity across different platforms and methodologies. A comprehensive study evaluating 748 nasopharyngeal swab samples from patients with suspected lower respiratory tract infections found that multiplex PCR testing identified respiratory viruses in 43.6% of samples, with significantly higher positivity in children (71.5%) compared to adults (40%) [16]. The assay demonstrated robust performance across different patient populations and effectively identified shifting viral patterns between pandemic and post-pandemic periods, with SARS-CoV-2 dominating during the pandemic (65.5% of positive cases) while post-pandemic viral circulation shifted toward other pathogens, notably Rhinovirus/Enterovirus (71.5% of positive samples) [16].

In a separate clinical validation study involving 1005 nasopharyngeal swabs, a novel FMCA-based multiplex PCR assay demonstrated 98.81% agreement with standard RT-qPCR, identifying 51.54% pathogen-positive cases, including 6.07% co-infections [51]. The assay successfully resolved 12 discordant results via Sanger sequencing, confirming superior sensitivity in low viral load scenarios. These findings highlight the critical importance of co-infection detection capability, which is frequently missed in single-plex testing formats.

Table 2: Analytical Sensitivity and Specificity of Different Multiplex Assay Formats

Assay Format	Sample Size	Sensitivity/ Positivity Rate	Specificity/ Agreement	Limit of Detection Range	Co-infection Detection Rate
Multiplex PCR (QIAstat-Dx Panel)	748 samples [16]	43.6% overall (71.5% pediatric, 40% adult) [16]	Not specified	Not specified	14.1% in children vs. 2.7% in adults [16]
9-plex RT-ddPCR	38 wastewater samples [99]	Not specified	No significant difference vs. singleplex (p > 0.1) [99]	1.4 to 2.9 copies/μL [99]	Designed for multiple target detection
FMCA-based Multiplex PCR	1005 samples [51]	51.54% pathogen-positive cases [51]	98.81% agreement with RT-qPCR [51]	4.94 to 14.03 copies/μL [51]	6.07% of positive cases [51]
Salivary Multiplex Immunoassay	101 paired samples [100]	PPA: 87.6-98.9% vs. EIAs; 88.4-98.6% vs. nAb [100]	NPA: 50-91.7% vs. EIAs; 21.9-34.4% vs. nAb [100]	Not specified	Not specified

Workflow Efficiency and Economic Considerations

Workflow efficiency represents a critical factor in multiplex assay implementation, particularly in high-volume or resource-limited settings. The FMCA-based multiplex PCR assay demonstrated a remarkable turnaround time of 1.5 hours at a cost of $5 per sample, representing an 86.5% reduction compared to commercial kits [51]. This substantial cost differential highlights the economic advantages of optimized laboratory-developed tests, especially when implemented for high-throughput screening during outbreaks.

The core building blocks of multiplex assays contribute significantly to workflow efficiency. Automated systems integrated with Laboratory Information Management Systems (LIMS) and Electronic Health Records (EHRs) facilitate seamless data transfer and management, while standardized protocols and data formats ensure compatibility across platforms [93]. Consumables dominate the product segment, contributing 57% of market revenue in the multiplex PCR assays sector, underscoring their critical role in overall workflow costs [97]. This distribution emphasizes the importance of reagent optimization in managing overall assay expenses.

Experimental Protocols for Optimization Studies

Protocol 1: Pooling Strategy Optimization

Objective: To determine the optimal sample pooling conditions that maximize reagent efficiency while maintaining analytical sensitivity.

Materials and Methods:

• Collect 30 individual patient samples with known status
• Prepare pools ranging from 2 to 12 samples using precise volumetric measurements
• Perform nucleic acid extraction on both individual samples and pooled samples using standardized protocols
• Conduct RT-qPCR analysis using identical reagent lots and cycling conditions
• Analyze Ct value shifts using Passing Bablok regressions for each pool size
• Estimate sensitivity in the context of the distribution of individually evaluated positive samples

Data Analysis:

• Calculate reagent savings for each pool size compared to individual testing
• Determine sensitivity reduction for each pool size relative to individual testing
• Identify the point where additional pooling provides no considerable reagent savings
• Establish the optimal balance between efficiency and sensitivity [96]

Protocol 2: Multiplex Assay Development and Validation

Objective: To develop and validate a novel multiplex assay with optimized reagents and workflow.

Materials and Reagents:

• Primers and probes designed for conserved regions of target pathogens
• Magnetic bead sets (MagPlex microspheres) coupled covalently with antigen
• One-step RT-ddPCR Advanced kit for Probes
• Wastewater samples or clinical specimens (nasopharyngeal swabs)
• Sample processing reagents (extraction kits, viral transport media)

Methods:

• Primer and Probe Design: Design specific primers and probes based on conserved regions of target genomes. Check sequences for specificity using BLAST against NCBI database. Incorporate modified bases (e.g., tetrahydrofuran residues) at variable positions to minimize impact of mismatches on melting temperature [51].
• Reaction Optimization: Systematically optimize primer and probe concentrations using different ratios (e.g., 900 nM/300 nM for high targets versus 400 nM/100 nM for low targets) to achieve clearly separated clusters in fluorescence channels [99].
• Assay Validation:
  • Determine limit of detection (LOD) using probit analysis with ≥95% detection probability
  • Assess precision through intra-assay (repeatability) and inter-assay (reproducibility) testing
  • Evaluate specificity against panels of non-target respiratory pathogens
  • Validate clinical performance against reference standards [51]

Workflow Integration:

• Implement automated nucleic acid extraction systems
• Utilize integrated platforms combining microfluidics with sensitive detection modules
• Establish standardized data analysis protocols with advanced algorithms for signal interpretation [93]

Diagram 1: Optimized Workflow for High-Sensitivity Multiplex Assays

Essential Research Reagent Solutions

Successful implementation of optimized multiplex assays requires access to specialized reagents and materials. The following table details key research reagent solutions essential for performing high-sensitivity multiplex assays in the context of respiratory virus detection research.

Table 3: Essential Research Reagent Solutions for Multiplex Assays

Reagent/Material	Function	Example Specifications	Optimization Considerations
MagPlex Microspheres	Solid phase for multiplex reactions	Color-coded magnetic beads for analyte capture [100]	Spectral addressability, distinct color codes for target differentiation
Target-Specific Primers/Probes	Amplification and detection of target sequences	Designed for conserved regions; modified bases (THF) for Tm stability [51]	Concentration optimization (400-900 nM primers/100-300 nM probes) [99]
One-Step RT-ddPCR Kits	Integrated reverse transcription and digital PCR	Enables absolute quantification without standard curves [99]	Compatible with multiplexing, inhibitor-tolerant formulations
Nucleic Acid Extraction Kits	Sample processing and nucleic acid purification	Automated systems with RNA/DNA extraction capabilities [51]	Yield, purity, and compatibility with downstream applications
Quality Control Materials	Assay validation and performance monitoring	Synthetic DNA oligonucleotides, reference strains [99] [51]	Includes both endogenous and exogenous controls for process verification
Fluorescence Detection Reagents	Signal generation and measurement	Hydrolysis probes with FAM, HEX, ROX, Cy5, ATTO590 fluorophores [99]	Minimal spectral overlap, appropriate quencher systems

Optimization of reagents and workflows represents a critical determinant of success in high-sensitivity multiplex assays. The current evidence demonstrates that strategic approaches to pooling strategies, reagent formulation, and assay design can significantly enhance performance while reducing costs. The integration of artificial intelligence and machine learning for data analysis and interpretation from multiplex assays represents a promising frontier for further improving diagnostic accuracy [98]. Additionally, the development of higher-plex assays capable of simultaneously detecting up to hundreds of analytes will enhance disease profiling capabilities, while the shift toward reagent kits compatible with point-of-care testing will expand decentralized diagnostics [98].

The future of multiplex assay optimization will likely focus on eco-friendly reagent formulations that minimize hazardous waste generation, increased adoption of "assay as a service" models to democratize access to multiplex testing, and continued expansion of chip-based and microfluidic platforms to reduce reagent volumes and assay durations [98]. Furthermore, the growing importance of personalized medicine will continue to bolster the development of multiplex biomarker panels for patient stratification across various disease states [95]. As these technological advancements converge with optimized reagents and workflows, multiplex assays will play an increasingly pivotal role in advancing respiratory virus detection research and clinical diagnostics.

The Role of Electronic Health Record (EHR) Data in Real-Time Trend Monitoring

Electronic Health Record (EHR) systems have evolved from digital repositories for patient charts into powerful tools for public health surveillance. For respiratory viruses, which pose a persistent and evolving threat to global health, EHR data offers a mechanism to move beyond traditional, lagging surveillance methods toward real-time trend monitoring. This capability is crucial for researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals who require timely, granular data to understand virus dynamics, assess intervention effectiveness, and identify emerging outbreaks. This guide objectively compares the performance of different EHR-based surveillance methodologies, evaluating their strengths and limitations in the critical context of detection rate analysis for multiple respiratory viruses.

Methodological Approaches to EHR-Based Surveillance

EHR data enables respiratory virus surveillance primarily through two methodological approaches: computable phenotype algorithms and integrated syndrome-laboratory frameworks. The performance of each varies significantly based on its design and the viruses targeted.

Computable Phenotype Algorithms

Computable phenotypes are structured algorithms that identify health conditions by combining various data elements within the EHR. For respiratory viruses, these typically integrate virus-specific International Classification of Diseases (ICD) billing codes, laboratory test results, and prescription records for antiviral medications. A 2025 study in Scientific Reports developed such phenotypes for eight respiratory viruses within the NIH's "All of Us" Research Program, grouping related events within 90-day episodes to define distinct illness cases [101].

Performance Metrics of Computable Phenotypes [101] The following table summarizes the performance of phenotype algorithms requiring at least one virus-specific ICD code, using laboratory results as a reference standard.

Respiratory Virus	Sensitivity (%)	*Positive Predictive Value (PPV - %) *
Influenza Virus	66.8	69.7
Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV)	55.2	97.3
SARS-CoV-2	44.8	68.8
Adenovirus (ADV)	42.4	89.7
Human Metapneumovirus (hMPV)	40.2	90.8
Human Coronavirus (hCoV)	33.4	79.5*
Rhinovirus (RV)	9.2	94.7
Parainfluenza (PIV)	8.3	91.7

Note: The PPV for hCoV dropped when codes recorded after February 1, 2020, were included, due to nonspecific coding during the COVID-19 pandemic. The PPV realigned with other non-influenza viruses after this period [101].

Key Experimental Protocol [101]:

• Data Source: EHR data from 265,222 participants in the All of Us Research Program.
• Phenotype Components: Virus-specific ICD-10 codes, nucleic acid amplification or virus culture laboratory results, and antiviral prescriptions (for influenza and SARS-CoV-2).
• Episode Definition: All EHR events (codes, labs, prescriptions) related to a respiratory virus within a 90-day window were grouped into a single episode.
• Validation: Laboratory results served as the reference standard for calculating sensitivity, specificity, and PPV. Performance was tested for phenotypes requiring 1, 2, 3, or 4 instances of a relevant ICD code.

Integrated Syndrome-Laboratory Frameworks

An alternative approach broadens surveillance beyond laboratory-confirmed cases. The Respiratory Virus–Like Illness (RAVIOLI) algorithm, developed for surveillance in Massachusetts, automatically analyzes EHR data using a combination of laboratory and syndromic indicators [102].

Performance and Output [102]: RAVIOLI was shown to have higher sensitivity and more pronounced fluctuation tracking compared to traditional Influenza-Like Illness (ILI) surveillance, which requires fever. It identified clear annual winter peaks during 2015-2019 caused by influenza, followed by cyclic surges of SARS-CoV-2, a spike in RSV in late 2022, and recrudescent influenza in late 2022 and 2023. Critically, during periods like fall 2021, RAVIOLI detected increases in respiratory illness that the traditional ILI definition missed entirely [102].

Key Experimental Protocol (RAVIOLI Algorithm) [102]:

• Data Source: EHR data from three large practice groups in Massachusetts using the Electronic Medical Record Support for Public Health (ESP) platform.
• Case Identification: The algorithm identifies cases based on:
  • A positive laboratory test for a respiratory virus (see Table 1).
  • An ICD-10 diagnosis code with a Positive Predictive Value (PPV) ≥10% for any respiratory virus or a specific virus.
  • A measured fever >100°F.
• Code Selection: Researchers identified all ICD-10 codes among patients who tested positive for a respiratory virus and calculated the PPV of each code. Only high-PPV codes were included.
• Output: Weekly counts of patients meeting the RAVIOLI criteria, stratified by probable etiology (virus-specific or nonspecific).

Comparative Analysis of Surveillance Performance

The choice between a computable phenotype and a broader syndromic approach involves a direct trade-off between specificity and sensitivity, which varies by virus and research question.

• For Well-Defined Viruses (RSV, ADV, hMPV): Phenotypes relying on ICD codes alone show high specificity and PPV (90-97%), making them excellent for building high-confidence cohorts for studies of virus-specific outcomes [101].
• For High-Prevalence Viruses (Influenza, SARS-CoV-2): ICD-code-based phenotypes for influenza and SARS-CoV-2 had lower PPV (69-70%), which improved significantly with the inclusion of antiviral medication data or by requiring multiple ICD codes. For influenza, combining one ICD code with a medication improved PPV to 87.1% [101].
• For Sensitivity vs. Specificity: The RAVIOLI framework, by incorporating nonspecific codes and fever, sacrifices some specificity for greater population-level sensitivity. This makes it more suitable for real-time situational awareness and early outbreak detection, as it captures a broader swath of respiratory illness activity that may be missed by stricter criteria [102].

Real-World Application and Validation

EHR-based surveillance systems are not confined to research; they are actively used to monitor trends and inform public health. A monitoring report from November 2025 used EHR data from Truveta (covering over 18% of daily US clinical care) to track virus-associated hospitalizations [103].

Recent Performance Data (October 2025) [103]: The system effectively tracked a 31.8% decline in overall respiratory virus-associated hospitalizations. It provided granular data, showing that while rhinovirus remained the leading cause (0.7% of all hospitalizations), COVID-19 hospitalizations declined substantially (-68.2%). Furthermore, it identified a critical early signal in the pediatric population: a more than doubling of RSV-associated hospitalizations for the second consecutive month, highlighting its utility for tracking emerging threats to vulnerable groups [103].

Visualizing EHR-Based Surveillance Workflows

The following diagram illustrates the logical workflow shared by advanced EHR-based surveillance systems like the computable phenotype and RAVIOLI algorithms.

EHR Surveillance Data Pipeline

Implementing and utilizing EHR-based surveillance requires a suite of data and methodological "reagents." The following table details essential components for researchers in this field.

Research Reagent / Resource	Function in EHR Surveillance
Structured EHR Data Elements (ICD Codes, Lab Results, Vital Signs)	Serves as the primary input data for algorithms. Virus-specific ICD codes and lab results are the core components for identifying cases [101] [102].
Curated ICD Code Sets	A validated list of diagnosis codes with high predictive value for specific respiratory viruses. Using a pre-validated set improves algorithm accuracy and reproducibility [101] [102].
Antiviral Prescription Data	Used to enhance the positive predictive value of phenotypes, particularly for influenza and SARS-CoV-2, where specific treatments exist [101].
Human Airway Epithelial (HAE) 3D Model	A high-throughput human tissue model used in drug discovery to evaluate candidate antivirals identified via surveillance data. It provides a human-relevant context for testing efficacy against viruses like influenza, RSV, and SARS-CoV-2 [104].
Surveillance Platform Software (e.g., ESP)	Open-source software platforms that perform automated, daily extraction and analysis of EHR data, applying algorithms to generate reports for public health agencies and researchers [102].

EHR data has fundamentally enhanced the landscape of respiratory virus monitoring, providing researchers and public health officials with a tool for timely, data-driven decision-making. Computable phenotype algorithms excel at constructing high-specificity cohorts for detailed studies of individual viruses like RSV and hMPV. In contrast, integrated frameworks like RAVIOLI offer high sensitivity for tracking overall respiratory disease burden and detecting emerging trends early. The choice between these methodologies is not a question of which is superior, but which is optimal for a specific research objective. The continued refinement of these algorithms, coupled with the growing availability of large-scale, de-identified EHR data, promises to further accelerate research into host genetics, health disparities, clinical outcomes, and the development of new antiviral therapeutics.

Benchmarking Performance and Validating Emerging Analytical Frameworks

Respiratory viruses constitute a significant global health burden, causing a spectrum of illnesses from mild upper respiratory tract infections to severe lower respiratory tract infections and pneumonia [16]. The accurate and timely identification of these pathogens in patient samples is highly dependent on the sampling methods used for clinical specimen collection [37]. Indeed, specimen collection represents the first important pillar for rapid and accurate diagnosis of respiratory viral infections, yet the diversity of available sampling methods presents a substantial challenge for clinicians and researchers alike.

The current landscape of respiratory virus testing is characterized by a wide array of sampling techniques, including various swab types (nasopharyngeal, mid-turbinate, oropharyngeal), aspirates, washes, and even alternative samples like saliva and sputum [37]. This diversity, coupled with limited direct comparisons in randomized controlled trials, makes evidence-based decision-making particularly difficult for clinical laboratories and research institutions [37] [105]. The identification of optimal sampling methods must balance multiple factors: detection sensitivity, patient comfort, operational feasibility, and minimization of infection transmission risk during collection.

This meta-analysis comprehensively evaluates 16 different sampling methods for respiratory virus detection, synthesizing evidence from direct and indirect comparisons to establish a clear hierarchy of effectiveness across different viral pathogens. Within the broader context of detection rate analysis for multiple respiratory viruses research, this guide provides objective, data-driven comparisons to inform both clinical practice and research protocol development.

Comparative Performance of Sampling Methods

A Bayesian network meta-analysis incorporating 54,438 samples from 57 studies provides robust evidence for ranking sampling methods based on their overall detection rates for respiratory viruses (RVs) [37] [105]. The analysis demonstrated good consistency and convergence, though with high heterogeneity, necessitating random-effect analysis [37]. The top-performing methods were nasopharyngeal wash (NPW), mid-turbinate swab (MTS), and nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) [37] [105].

Table 1: Overall Ranking of Sampling Methods for Respiratory Virus Detection

Rank	Sampling Method	Abbreviation	Key Characteristics
1	Nasopharyngeal Wash	NPW	Considered highest detection rate but more invasive
2	Mid-Turbinate Swab	MTS	Balance of high detection rate, less discomfort, and easy operation
3	Nasopharyngeal Swab	NPS	Traditional gold standard, but may cause discomfort/coughing
4	Saliva	-	Less invasive, patient-self-collectible
5	Nasopharyngeal Aspirate	NPA	Moderate detection efficiency
6	Sputum	-	Virus-specific utility (e.g., coronaviruses)

While these three methods demonstrated superior overall performance, each presents distinct advantages and limitations. NPW, despite showing the highest detection rate, is more invasive and requires specialized equipment and training [37]. MTS offers an advantageous balance of high detection rate, less patient discomfort, and operational simplicity – characteristics particularly valuable in both clinical and research settings [37]. NPS, traditionally considered the gold standard, is obtained less easily than other specimens and may cause coughing in most patients, potentially increasing the risk of nosocomial spread of respiratory viruses [37].

Virus-Specific Detection Rates

The detection efficiency of sampling methods varies significantly according to the target virus, reflecting differences in pathophysiology and pathogenic mechanisms [37]. Virus-specific subanalysis, while generally consistent with overall trends, reveals important distinctions that should guide method selection during outbreaks of particular pathogens.

Table 2: Virus-Specific Ranking of Sampling Methods

Virus	Rank 1	Rank 2	Rank 3	Noteworthy Findings
Influenza	MTS	NPW	NPS	MTS shows superiority for both influenza A and B
Rhinovirus	Saliva	NPW	NPS	Saliva ranks first for detection
Parainfluenza	Saliva	NPW	NPS	Similar pattern to rhinovirus
RSV	NPW	MTS	NPA	NPW and MTS outperform other methods
Adenovirus	Saliva	NPW	MTS/Sputum	Saliva demonstrates particular advantage
Coronavirus	Sputum	MTS	NPS	Sputum ranks first for common coronaviruses

For influenza viruses, MTS, NPW, and NPS demonstrate the highest detection rates, with MTS showing particular superiority for both influenza A and B [37]. Interestingly, for rhinovirus and parainfluenza, saliva joins NPW and NPS as top-performing methods, suggesting a potentially valuable role for this less invasive sample type [37]. Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) detection is optimal with NPW, MTS, and nasopharyngeal aspirate [37].

Notably, sputum ranks first for coronavirus detection, potentially demonstrating that the pathophysiology and pathogenic mechanisms of COVID-19 is similar to common coronaviruses and that it infects easily via sputum [37]. This finding has particular significance for current respiratory virus surveillance, suggesting that sputum sampling might be preferentially considered for coronavirus detection and monitoring.

Methodological Approaches

Sample Collection Techniques

The compared sampling methods encompass a diverse range of techniques for collecting respiratory specimens [37]:

• Swab-based methods: Nasopharyngeal swab (NPS), mid-turbinate swab (MTS), nasal swab (NS), throat swab (TS), combined nasal-throat swab (N-TS), oropharyngeal swab (OPS)
• Aspirate and wash methods: Nasal aspirate (NA), nasopharyngeal aspirate (NPA), nasal wash (NW), nasopharyngeal wash (NPW)
• Alternative specimens: Saliva, sputum, bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL)
• Specialized collections: Nasal brush (NB), swab with viral transport medium (VTM-S), aspirate with viral transport medium (VTM-A)

A recent pediatric study comparing MTS versus combined MTS and throat swab (TS&MTS) demonstrated high concordance (80.2%) between specimen types, with discordant specimens typically having lower viral levels [106]. This suggests that while combined sampling may increase detection sensitivity in some cases, MTS alone provides reliable detection for most clinical and research purposes.

Laboratory Analysis Methods

The meta-analysis incorporated studies utilizing various detection methodologies, including reverse transcription PCR (RT-PCR), virus culture, immunofluorescent antibody (IFA) testing, and ELISA [37]. Modern approaches increasingly employ multiplex PCR panels capable of simultaneously detecting numerous respiratory pathogens [16].

For wastewater-based surveillance, concentration methods (e.g., precipitation, adsorption/elution, ultrafiltration), RNA extraction kits, and primer/probe combinations significantly impact detection sensitivity [107]. One study found that virus enrichment and RNA extraction methods were particularly relevant for procedure optimization, while the detection step had relatively low influence [107].

Meta-Analytical Framework

The network meta-analysis employed a Bayesian framework using R software (v.3.6.3) with the 'GeMTC' (v.0.8.2) package [37] [105]. Model consistency was assessed via node-splitting methods, heterogeneity through I² tests, and convergence using Gelman-Rubin-Brooks plots [37]. The analysis calculated odds ratios (OR) with 95% credible intervals (CrI) using Markov chain Monte Carlo methods, with rank probabilities determining the hierarchy of each sampling method [37].

The Researcher's Toolkit

Essential Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Respiratory Virus Detection

Reagent/Kit Type	Function	Examples/Alternatives
Viral Transport Medium (VTM)	Preserves specimen integrity during transport	Various commercial formulations available
Nucleic Acid Extraction Kits	Isolate viral RNA/DNA from specimens	QIAamp Viral RNA Mini Kit, MagMAX Viral/Pathogen Kit
Reverse Transcription Kits	Convert RNA to cDNA for detection	High-Capacity cDNA Reverse Transcription Kit
PCR Master Mixes	Amplify target sequences	TaqMan Fast Virus 1-Step Master Mix
Multiplex PCR Panels	Simultaneously detect multiple pathogens	QIAstat-Dx Respiratory Panel, BioFire Respiratory Panel
Primer/Probe Sets	Virus-specific detection reagents	Various published and commercial designs

Specialized Sampling Equipment

• Flocked swabs: Demonstrate superior specimen collection and release compared to traditional fiber-wound swabs [37]
• Aspiration catheters: Used for nasopharyngeal aspirate collection, particularly in pediatric populations [37]
• Saliva collection devices: Stabilize nucleic acids in self-collected saliva specimens [37]
• Aerosol sampling equipment: Filter-based systems for environmental surveillance [108]

Emerging Methodologies and Future Directions

Wastewater-Based Epidemiology

Wastewater-based epidemiology has emerged as a valuable complementary approach to clinical surveillance for monitoring respiratory virus circulation at the population level [107] [109]. Studies in Belgium and Germany have demonstrated that wastewater sampling can effectively track influenza, RSV, and other respiratory pathogens, with detection patterns generally corresponding to clinical observations [107] [109].

Methodological optimization remains crucial, as concentration procedures (e.g., PEG precipitation, ultrafiltration) and RNA extraction methods significantly impact recovery rates [107]. For influenza virus and RSV detection in wastewater, recovery rates ranging from 1% to 98% have been reported depending on the concentration method used [107].

Aerosol Sampling for Environmental Surveillance

Filter-based sampling methods have been widely employed to characterize airborne SARS-CoV-2 RNA for environmental surveillance [108]. A systematic review of 84 studies identified that sampling volume, filter type, and storage conditions after sampling affect the detection positivity rate of SARS-CoV-2 genetic material in aerosols sampled near infected individuals indoors [108].

This methodology shows promise for early warning systems, non-intrusive environmental monitoring, and managing COVID-19 outbreaks, though standardized protocols have not yet been established [108]. The detection of SARS-CoV-2 genetic material in indoor environments has been reported in 72% of datasets from studies conducted in various settings, including healthcare facilities and public spaces [108].

Discussion and Implications

Practical Considerations for Method Selection

When selecting sampling methods for respiratory virus detection, researchers and clinicians must consider multiple factors beyond detection rate alone. The meta-analysis findings suggest that MTS represents an optimal balance of high detection rate, minimal patient discomfort, and operational simplicity [37]. This is particularly relevant in pandemic situations where reducing healthcare worker exposure during sample collection is paramount.

The significant differences observed between oropharyngeal and nasopharyngeal sampling in real-world practice (with NP demonstrating 61.35-94.59% higher positivity rates than OP) highlight the importance of method selection in clinical settings [110]. These substantial discrepancies between practice and controlled studies underscore the challenges of implementing optimal sampling techniques in routine clinical care.

Temporal Patterns and Surveillance Implications

Recent data through September 2025 indicates declining respiratory virus-associated hospitalizations overall, but with rhinovirus emerging as the leading cause of virus-associated hospitalizations (1.0% of all hospitalizations) [58]. This evolving epidemiological landscape reinforces the need for optimized detection methods that can adapt to shifting viral prevalence patterns.

In pediatric populations, respiratory virus-associated hospitalizations remain stable at 2.3%, with rhinovirus being the dominant pathogen [58]. The significantly higher viral detection rates in children compared to adults (71.5% versus 40% in one study) highlights the particular importance of sensitive detection methods in pediatric settings [16].

Research Gaps and Future Directions

Substantial heterogeneity in the network meta-analysis indicates the need for additional well-designed randomized controlled trials with larger sample sizes to validate these findings [37] [105]. Future research should focus on standardizing sampling protocols across settings and establishing evidence-based guidelines for virus-specific method selection.

The demonstration that optimal sampling methods vary by target virus supports the development of pathogen-specific testing algorithms, particularly during seasonal epidemics or pandemics [37]. Further investigation into self-collected samples like saliva and MTS could expand testing capacity while reducing healthcare worker exposure risk.

Respiratory tract infections represent a significant global health challenge, causing millions of deaths annually and posing a continuous threat of epidemics and pandemics, as recently demonstrated by the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak [111]. The accurate and timely detection of respiratory viruses—including Influenza A and B, SARS-CoV-2, Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV), human adenoviruses (HAdVs), and human rhinoviruses (HRVs)—is critical for effective patient management, outbreak control, and optimizing public health responses [111]. Conventional detection methods, such as cell culture and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs), often require significant time for sample preparation, incubation, and analysis, typically taking several hours to days [112]. These laboratory-intensive methods require highly trained personnel and significant infrastructure, which may not be available in all settings, particularly in low-resource or remote areas [112]. Furthermore, traditional methods may sometimes yield false positives or negatives, leading to diagnostic uncertainty and potentially inappropriate treatments [112].

In response to these challenges, integrated platforms combining microfluidics, biosensors, and lab-on-a-chip (LOC) technology have emerged as transformative tools in clinical diagnostics [112]. These systems leverage the science of manipulating and controlling fluids in tiny channels with dimensions of tens to hundreds of micrometers to replicate and miniaturize the processes typically performed in a full-scale laboratory [112]. This review provides a comprehensive comparison of these novel platforms against traditional methods, focusing on their clinical validation for detecting multiple respiratory viruses within the context of detection rate analysis. By examining experimental data, technical performance, and implementation considerations, this guide aims to equip researchers and drug development professionals with the critical information needed to evaluate these rapidly evolving technologies.

Fundamental Principles of Integrated Detection Platforms

Lab-on-a-Chip (LOC) technology integrates one or several laboratory functions onto a single chip measuring only millimeters to a few square centimeters in size [112]. By employing microfluidics—the science of manipulating fluids at the microscale—LOC devices miniaturize and automate complex laboratory processes including sample preparation, biochemical reactions, and detection [112] [113]. The development of LOC technology dates back to the 1970s with the introduction of a miniaturized gas chromatography analyzer on a silicon wafer, gaining prominent recognition through the conceptual work on miniaturized total chemical analysis systems (μTAS) by Manz et al. in 1990 [113].

Microfluidic-based biosensors combine biological recognition elements (such as antibodies, enzymes, or nucleic acids) with transducers that convert biological interactions into measurable electrical, optical, or electrochemical signals [114] [115]. These systems enable direct detection of viral antigens or genetic material, even before the immune response becomes detectable, providing a critical advantage for early diagnosis [111]. The integration of microfluidics allows for precise control over the physical and chemical environment, enabling high-quality assessment required for viral biology research [111].

These platforms employ various detection mechanisms. Optical detection utilizes fluorescence, absorbance, or chemiluminescence to detect the presence of target molecules [112]. Electrochemical detection measures electrical signals generated by redox reactions or changes in conductivity [112]. Magnetic detection uses magnetic particles and sensors to identify target analytes [112]. The selection of detection methodology significantly influences the sensitivity, specificity, cost, and portability of the system.

Comparative Performance Analysis

The table below summarizes key performance metrics for novel detection platforms compared to traditional methods, based on recent clinical validation studies:

Table 1: Performance Comparison of Respiratory Virus Detection Platforms

Platform Category	Detection Time	Sensitivity	Specificity	Sample Volume	Multiplexing Capability
Cell Culture (Traditional)	2-14 days [112]	Variable [112]	High	Milliliter range	Limited
ELISA/Immunoassays (Traditional)	2-4 hours [112]	Moderate to High	Moderate to High	50-100 μL	Moderate
PCR-based Methods (Traditional)	4-8 hours [112]	High	High	10-50 μL	Moderate to High
Microfluidic LOC with Biosensors (Novel)	Minutes to 2 hours [112] [111]	High [112] [115]	High [112] [115]	Nanoliters to Microliters [112] [113]	High [111]

The quantitative data demonstrates the transformative potential of integrated microfluidic platforms. Their significantly reduced detection time—from days to minutes or hours—is particularly critical in acute clinical situations such as sepsis or during outbreak responses, where rapid identification and treatment of pathogens can significantly impact patient outcomes and control disease spread [112] [111]. The high sensitivity and specificity of these novel platforms stem from their enclosed microenvironments that reduce contamination risk, precise fluid handling that ensures efficient capture of minute viral quantities, and integration with powerful molecular techniques that can amplify tiny amounts of microbial DNA to detectable levels [112].

Table 2: Clinical Validation Data for Selected Respiratory Viruses

Target Virus	Platform Type	Clinical Sensitivity	Clinical Specificity	Limit of Detection	Reference
SARS-CoV-2	Electrochemical Biosensor	95.2%	100%	0.5 pg/mL [115]	[115]
Influenza A/B	Optical LOC	98%	99%	100 viral copies/mL [111]	[111]
RSV	Microfluidic Immunoassay	96.5%	98.7%	Not Specified	[115]

The exceptional analytical performance of these novel platforms is further enhanced by their minimal sample requirements (nanoliters to microliters) and high multiplexing capabilities, enabling simultaneous detection of multiple respiratory pathogens in a single test [112] [111]. This multiplexing capability is particularly valuable for diagnosing respiratory infections with similar symptoms but different etiologies, enabling more targeted therapeutic interventions and public health measures.

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

Standardized Workflow for Microfluidic-Based Virus Detection

The experimental workflow for detecting respiratory viruses using integrated microfluidic platforms typically involves sample preparation, on-chip processing, target capture, signal detection, and data analysis. The following Graphviz diagram illustrates this standardized process:

Sample Collection and Preparation: Respiratory virus detection begins with collecting appropriate samples, typically nasal swabs, nasopharyngeal swabs, or saliva [111]. For microfluidic platforms, these samples are often introduced directly into the device with minimal pre-processing. The LOC devices include modules for sample filtration, concentration, and dilution, ensuring the sample is optimized for subsequent analysis [112]. This step is crucial for removing potential inhibitors and concentrating the target analytes to detectable levels.

On-Chip Processing and Target Capture: Once introduced into the microfluidic system, samples undergo any necessary processing steps. For nucleic acid-based detection, this includes cell lysis and nucleic acid extraction, often achieved through chemical or electrical methods integrated into the chip [112] [113]. The processed sample then flows through microchannels to reaction chambers where specific biochemical recognition occurs. For antigen detection, this involves capture antibodies immobilized on sensor surfaces; for molecular detection, this involves hybridization with specific probes or primers for amplification [111] [115]. The microscale dimensions allow for precise control over fluid dynamics, enabling efficient mixing, separation, and reaction processes within the chip [112].

Signal Detection and Data Analysis: Following target capture and amplification (if applicable), the platform detects the presence of the virus through integrated sensors. Optical detection methods utilize fluorescence, absorbance, or chemiluminescence; electrochemical detection measures electrical signals generated by redox reactions; and magnetic detection uses magnetic particles and sensors to identify target analytes [112]. The resulting signals are processed by integrated electronics or external readers, with some advanced systems incorporating artificial intelligence algorithms for data interpretation and to enhance diagnostic accuracy [112]. This integration enables real-time monitoring of reactions and immediate interpretation of results, which is crucial in clinical diagnostics where timely decision-making significantly impacts patient outcomes [112].

Validation Methodologies for Clinical Studies

Robust clinical validation of novel detection platforms requires rigorous experimental design comparing the new technology against established reference methods. The following Graphviz diagram illustrates a standard clinical validation workflow:

Study Population and Sample Collection: Well-designed clinical validation studies enroll a sufficient number of participants representing the target patient population (e.g., pediatric vs. adult, symptomatic vs. asymptomatic, various stages of infection) [111]. Samples are typically collected using standardized methods, with aliquots reserved for testing with both the novel platform and reference methods. To minimize bias, testing should be performed in a blinded manner where technicians are unaware of the results from the comparative method.

Reference Standards and Statistical Analysis: The choice of reference standard is critical for meaningful validation. For respiratory virus detection, reverse transcription quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) is often considered the gold standard for molecular detection, while cell culture or commercially available FDA-approved immunoassays may serve as references for viable virus or antigen detection, respectively [111] [115]. Statistical analysis typically includes calculation of sensitivity (true positive rate), specificity (true negative rate), positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and overall accuracy with 95% confidence intervals. Cohen's kappa statistic is often calculated to measure agreement between the new test and reference standard beyond chance [115].

Essential Research Reagent Solutions

Successful development and implementation of microfluidic biosensing platforms for respiratory virus detection requires carefully selected research reagents and materials. The table below details essential components and their functions:

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for Microfluidic Respiratory Virus Detection Platforms

Reagent Category	Specific Examples	Function in Detection Workflow
Biological Recognition Elements	Monoclonal antibodies, Single-chain variable fragments (scFvs), DNA/RNA probes, Aptamers [115]	Specifically bind to viral targets (antigens or genetic material) enabling selective detection
Signal Transduction Materials	Fluorescent dyes (FITC, Cy5), Electroactive mediators (ferrocene, methylene blue), Enzymes (HRP, ALP), Magnetic nanoparticles [112] [115]	Generate measurable signals (optical, electrochemical, magnetic) proportional to target concentration
Microfluidic Substrate Materials	Poly(dimethylsiloxane) (PDMS), Poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA), Glass, Paper substrates [111] [113]	Form the structural basis of microfluidic chips with specific optical, chemical, and biocompatibility properties
Amplification Reagents	Primers, Probes, DNA polymerases, Reverse transcriptases, Nucleotides, Isothermal amplification mixes [112] [111]	Amplify specific viral nucleic acid sequences to detectable levels through PCR or isothermal methods
Surface Chemistry Reagents	(3-aminopropyl)triethoxysilane (APTES), Streptavidin/biotin, N-hydroxysuccinimide (NHS) esters, Thiol-based linkers [115]	Immobilize recognition elements on sensor surfaces while maintaining their bioactivity and orientation

The selection of appropriate biological recognition elements is particularly critical for assay performance. Monoclonal antibodies offer high specificity but may be susceptible to degradation; aptamers provide better stability and can be selected against a wider range of targets, including non-immunogenic molecules; nucleic acid probes enable sequence-specific detection of viral genomes [115]. The choice of microfluidic substrate material significantly impacts device fabrication complexity, cost, and performance characteristics. PDMS is widely used due to its optical transparency, gas permeability, and ease of fabrication, though it can absorb hydrophobic molecules; PMMA offers higher rigidity and better chemical resistance; paper substrates enable extremely low-cost, disposable devices driven by capillary action [111] [113].

Surface chemistry reagents facilitate the stable immobilization of recognition elements on sensor surfaces while maintaining their bioactivity. Different functionalization strategies (covalent bonding, affinity interactions, physical adsorption) offer trade-offs between binding density, orientation control, and stability [115]. Signal transduction materials must be selected based on the detection modality (optical, electrochemical, magnetic) with consideration for sensitivity, signal-to-noise ratio, and compatibility with the microfluidic environment. The integration of these various reagent systems into a seamless, automated workflow represents one of the most significant challenges—and opportunities—in the development of next-generation respiratory virus detection platforms.

The clinical validation data comprehensively demonstrates that integrated platforms combining microfluidics, biosensors, and lab-on-a-chip technology offer significant advantages over traditional methods for respiratory virus detection. These novel platforms provide dramatically reduced detection times (minutes to hours instead of days), high sensitivity and specificity comparable to gold standard methods, minimal sample requirements, and excellent potential for multiplexing [112] [111]. The compact nature of these systems enables point-of-care testing in diverse settings, including remote areas and field hospitals, making advanced diagnostics more accessible [112].

Despite these promising advances, challenges remain in the widespread adoption of these technologies. Technical hurdles include the need for improved platform stability and shelf-life, further reduction of false response errors, and more seamless integration of sample preparation modules [114]. Manufacturing and regulatory challenges include standardization for large-scale production and navigating the complex regulatory landscape for clinical diagnostics [113]. Future developments will likely focus on enhancing multi-analyte detection capabilities, incorporating artificial intelligence for data interpretation and predictive analytics, creating more sustainable and biodegradable device materials, and developing increasingly connected systems for real-time epidemiological surveillance [112] [113].

As these technologies continue to mature, they hold tremendous potential to transform respiratory virus diagnostics by providing rapid, accurate, and accessible testing that can dramatically improve patient outcomes and strengthen public health responses to future outbreaks and pandemics. For researchers and drug development professionals, understanding the capabilities, validation methodologies, and implementation considerations of these platforms is essential for leveraging their full potential in both clinical and research settings.

The persistent global burden of respiratory viruses and healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) represents a significant challenge to public health systems worldwide, contributing to substantial morbidity, mortality, and economic costs [116]. Traditional surveillance and diagnostic methods, often labor-intensive and prone to human error, struggle to provide the timely, accurate risk stratification needed for effective intervention [116]. In recent years, artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) have emerged as transformative technologies for infection control, offering advanced predictive capabilities by analyzing complex, multidimensional datasets [116] [117] [118]. These approaches are particularly valuable for predicting infection risk, enabling proactive measures before symptoms become obvious or infections are clinically confirmed [118].

This guide objectively compares the performance of various ML approaches for infection risk prediction, with a specific focus on respiratory viruses. It synthesizes current evidence on how integrating environmental data (such as air quality and meteorological factors) with clinical information enhances model accuracy. By providing detailed experimental protocols, performance comparisons, and resources for implementation, this analysis aims to support researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals in selecting and optimizing ML strategies for respiratory virus research and clinical deployment.

Performance Comparison of Machine Learning Approaches

Machine learning models demonstrate varying capabilities depending on their architecture, input data types, and target pathogens. The tables below summarize the performance metrics of different ML approaches for general HAIs, specific respiratory viruses, and models incorporating environmental data.

Table 1: Performance of ML Models in Predicting Healthcare-Associated Infections (HAIs)

Infection Type	ML Model(s) Used	Key Predictive Features	Performance Metrics	Citation
General HAI (Pre-Symptomatic)	Ensemble-based boosted decision trees	163 vital signs, laboratory measurements, demographics	AUC: 0.88 (1 hour before clinical suspicion); AUC >0.85 (maintained over 48 hours prior)	[118]
General HAI (Pre-Symptomatic)	Reduced-feature model	36 most frequent vital signs, laboratory measurements, demographics	AUC: 0.86 (1 hour before clinical suspicion)	[118]
Surgical Site Infections (SSIs)	Various AI Models (ML and DL)	Electronic Health Record (EHR) data	AUC scores frequently >0.80	[116]
Urinary Tract Infections (UTIs)	Various AI Models (ML and DL)	Electronic Health Record (EHR) data	AUC scores frequently >0.80	[116]
UTI Risk with Vitamin D Deficiency	Extra Trees, Random Forest	Clinical records, serum vitamin D	Accuracy: 0.9510 (Extra Trees), 0.9525 (Random Forest)	[119]

Table 2: Performance of ML Models for Respiratory Virus Detection and Risk Prediction

Respiratory Virus/Context	ML Model(s) Used	Key Predictive Features	Performance Metrics	Citation
Multi-Virus Respiratory Risk	Chained Random Forest Classifier (CRFC)	Air quality (NO2, PM2.5, etc.), meteorological data, age	Average AUC: 0.90, Overall Accuracy: 0.76	[7]
Influenza-like Illness (ILI)	XGBoost with SHAP interpretability	Symptoms (fever ≥37.9°C + cough/rhinorrhea)	AUC: 0.734 (model), AUC: 0.618 (new ILI definition)	[117]
Influenza Complications	XGBoost, Shapley values (GFlu-CxFlag model)	Clinical data from vaccine-hesitant populations	AUC: 0.82	[117]
Seasonal Influenza Diagnosis	Random Forest	Clinical symptoms and signs	Accuracy: 0.86	[117]
Temporal Forecasting of Viruses	ARIMA time-series model	Historical monthly case counts	Successful forecasting of SARS-CoV-2, Rhinovirus/Enterovirus, and RSV trends through 2027	[16]

Key Performance Insights

• High-Accuracy HAI Prediction: ML models, particularly ensemble methods, can predict HAIs with high accuracy (AUC >0.85) even before clinical suspicion, leveraging EHR data for real-time surveillance [116] [118].
• Effectiveness of Simplified Models: Reduced-feature models maintaining strong performance (AUC: 0.86) demonstrate potential for scalable implementation in resource-constrained settings [118].
• Superiority of Data-Driven Definitions: For influenza, an ML-derived symptom definition (XGBoost) significantly outperformed existing definitions from the WHO and CDC [117].
• Value of Environmental Data: Integrating environmental features like NO2 levels and meteorological conditions with clinical data yields robust multi-virus prediction models with high AUC scores (0.90) [7].

Detailed Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

The implementation of successful ML models for infection risk prediction relies on rigorous data processing and model training methodologies. The following workflows detail the protocols from key studies.

Protocol 1: Clinical HAI Risk Prediction Model

This protocol outlines the development of a clinical decision support tool for predicting HAI risk before obvious symptoms present [118].

Diagram 1: HAI Risk Prediction Workflow

3.1.1 Data Sourcing and Cohort Extraction

• Data Sources: Combine large, retrospective hospital datasets (e.g., MIMIC-III, eICU, Banner Health), encompassing over 6.5 million patient encounters [118].
• Infection Cohort: Select patients with (1) confirmed infection diagnosis (ICD-9 codes) and (2) clinical suspicion of infection localized by microbiology culture test order. For HAI, suspicion must occur ≥48 hours after admission [118].
• Control Cohort: Select patients without infection-related diagnoses or microbiology tests. Randomly downsample to maintain a prior infection odds of 12.5% to handle class imbalance [118].
• Synthetic Event Time: For control patients, assign a random time-point ≥48 hours after their first clinical measurement to extract data for prediction, mirroring the infection cohort [118].

3.1.2 Feature Engineering and Preprocessing

• Feature Sets: Extract demographics, vital signs, and laboratory measurements [118].
• Observation Time: Define as 1 hour before clinical suspicion (or synthetic event time for controls). Use the latest measured value for each feature [118].
• Temporal Trends: Calculate trend features from vital signs (e.g., heart rate, blood pressure) during the 48-hour window preceding the observation time. Apply physiologic plausibility filters to mitigate outlier sensitivity [118].
• Data Cleaning: Implement an extensive preprocessing pipeline to create a consistent dataset across sources, including handling of missing values and redundant columns [119] [118].

3.1.3 Model Training and Evaluation

• Algorithm: Train ensemble-based boosted decision trees [118].
• Validation: Use 10-fold cross-validation to assess model performance and robustness [119].
• Evaluation Metrics: Primary metrics include Area Under the Curve (AUC). Also report sensitivity, specificity, and precision-recall curves as appropriate [7] [118].
• Benchmarking: Compare performance against traditional clinical rules (e.g., qSOFA score) and individual vital signs like temperature [118].

Protocol 2: Respiratory Virus Risk with Environmental Data

This protocol describes the development of a multi-label model for predicting respiratory virus infection risk by integrating clinical, air quality, and meteorological data [7].

Diagram 2: Environmental Virus Risk Model

3.2.1 Data Collection and Integration

• Pathogen Data: Collect respiratory virus test results (e.g., for Influenza, RSV, Adenovirus) from multiple hospitals across a wide geographical area (e.g., 31 regions in China) over a multi-year period [7].
• Environmental Data:
  • Air Quality: Obtain monitoring data for AQI, NO2, PM2.5, PM10, SO2, O3, and CO [7].
  • Meteorological Data: Obtain measurements for air temperature, dew point temperature, wind speed, and wind direction [7].
• Data Integration: Merge pathogen, air quality, and meteorological datasets by region and date to create a unified analysis dataset [7].

3.2.2 Data Preprocessing and Sampling

• Data Cleaning: Handle missing values and ensure consistent units across all integrated data sources.
• Stratified Sampling: Use the Iterative Stratification method to split the dataset into training and test sets, ensuring an even distribution of all virus labels across splits to account for the multi-label nature of the problem [7].

3.2.3 Model Training and Interpretation

• Algorithm: Employ a Chained Random Forest Classifier (CRFC), a random forest-based method designed for multi-label classification, which chains multiple classifiers to account for label correlations [7].
• Feature Analysis: Use statistical tests (e.g., Kruskal-Wallis H test) and correlation heatmaps to understand relationships between variables and their distribution across virus categories [7].
• Model Interpretation: Apply the SHAP (SHapley Additive exPlanations) framework to interpret the model's predictions, quantify feature importance, and provide global and local explainability [7].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

The development and deployment of ML models for infection risk prediction often rely on specific laboratory and data resources. The following table details key reagents and tools referenced in the analyzed studies.

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Resources for Respiratory Virus ML Research

Reagent/Resource	Type	Primary Function in Research	Example Use Case	Citation
QIAstat-Dx Respiratory Panel	Multiplex PCR Assay	Simultaneous detection of 19 respiratory viruses and 3 bacterial targets from nasopharyngeal swabs.	Gold-standard confirmation of respiratory virus infections for model training and validation [16].	[16]
Lyophilization-Ready Master Mixes	Molecular Biology Reagent	Enable room-temperature stable, rapid multiplex qPCR and LAMP assays.	Sensitive pathogen detection in point-of-care or resource-limited settings contributing data for models [10].	[10]
NGS Sample Prep Kits	Next-Generation Sequencing Reagent	Simplify workflow for genomic sequencing of pathogens; ambient-temperature stable options available.	Genomic surveillance for identifying emerging novel viruses and variants [10].	[10]
Paired Antibodies & Blocking Reagents	Immunoassay Reagents	Optimize the sensitivity and specificity of lateral flow and ELISA-based rapid tests.	Decentralized testing and serological studies, generating data for population-level risk models [10].	[10]
De-identified EHR Datasets	Data Resource	Provide large-scale, linked clinical data for model training and validation.	Development of clinical risk prediction models (e.g., MIMIC-III, eICU) [118].	[118]

Machine learning models, particularly ensemble methods like random forests and gradient-boosting machines (XGBoost), demonstrate superior performance for predicting infection risk compared to traditional clinical rules or single-parameter monitoring [116] [118]. The integration of environmental data with clinical information further enhances model accuracy and provides a more holistic view of infection risk factors [7]. Key to successful implementation is the adherence to rigorous experimental protocols, including robust data preprocessing, appropriate handling of class imbalance, and the use of model interpretation tools like SHAP to build clinician trust and facilitate actionable insights [116] [7]. Future efforts should focus on standardizing validation protocols, improving model interpretability, and fostering multicenter collaborations to ensure these powerful tools can be equitably and effectively deployed across diverse healthcare environments [116].

Forecasting Models (e.g., ARIMA) for Predicting Community Outbreaks and Healthcare Burden

Accurately predicting community outbreaks and the ensuing healthcare burden is a cornerstone of effective public health planning and response. For researchers and drug development professionals, understanding the capabilities and limitations of various forecasting models is crucial for developing proactive interventions and allocating resources efficiently. This guide provides a comparative analysis of prevalent forecasting methodologies, with a specific focus on their application in detection rate analysis for multiple respiratory viruses. We frame this discussion within the broader thesis that integrating traditional statistical models with modern machine learning techniques, and enriching them with exogenous data, yields the most robust framework for forecasting respiratory virus trends and their impact on healthcare systems. The following sections will objectively compare model performance, detail experimental protocols, and visualize the analytical workflows that underpin this field.

Model Comparison: Performance, Applications, and Limitations

Forecasting models for infectious diseases can be broadly categorized into statistical time-series models and machine learning (ML) or hybrid approaches. The table below summarizes the core characteristics, performance metrics, and ideal use cases for each model type based on recent experimental data.

Table 1: Comparative Analysis of Forecasting Models for Respiratory Disease Outbreaks and Healthcare Burden

Model Type	Reported Performance Metrics	Best-Suited Applications	Key Advantages	Key Limitations
ARIMA/SARIMA [120] [121] [122]	TB Prediction (ARIMA (0,1,1)(0,1,1)12): AIC=543.13, BIC=546.69, MAPE=0.26% [121]CKD Prediction (ARIMA (1,1,1)): AIC=543.13, BIC=546.69 [123]	Short-term forecasting of diseases with clear trends and seasonality (e.g., tuberculosis, influenza) [121] [122].	Highly interpretable; robust for linear trends and seasonal patterns; well-established methodology [120] [124].	Assumes linearity; struggles with complex, non-linear patterns and sudden, unexpected outbreaks [125].
ARIMAX [122]	Influenza Forecasting (ARIMAX(0,0,1)(1,0,0)12 with PM10): AIC=529.74, AICc=530.36, BIC=542.91; RMSE (fitting)=2.999, RMSE (predicting)=12.033 [122]	Enhancing forecast accuracy by incorporating influencing factors like environmental data (e.g., air pollution, meteorological factors) [122].	Improves upon ARIMA by including external, causal variables; can lead to more accurate and explainable forecasts [122].	Requires collection and preprocessing of high-quality external data; model identification becomes more complex.
Machine Learning (e.g., AutoML, Transformer, ANN) [126]	SARI Hospitalizations: Machine learning models computed more accurate forecasts compared to naïve seasonal models. Performance improved with reduced temporal resolution (e.g., weekly vs. daily) [126].	Capturing complex, non-linear relationships in multivariate datasets; integrating diverse data sources (e.g., lab data, age groups) [126].	High flexibility and ability to model complex, non-linear patterns without strong prior assumptions [126] [125].	Often acts as a "black box" with low interpretability; requires large datasets; computationally intensive [125].
Hybrid (ARIMA + ML) [125]	Cardiovascular Mortality (ARIMA+SVM): RMSE improvements of up to 15.6% over standalone ARIMA across various age groups [125].	Situations where data exhibits both linear dependencies and complex, non-linear residuals, leading to superior accuracy [125].	Combines ARIMA's strength in modeling linear trends with ML's power to capture non-linear patterns; often achieves state-of-the-art accuracy [125].	Increased model complexity; requires expertise in multiple modeling philosophies; can be time-consuming to develop and validate.

Experimental Protocols: From Data to Forecast

To ensure reproducibility and rigorous evaluation, forecasting studies follow a structured protocol. The following workflow and methodology description outline the standard practice for building and validating a time series model, such as ARIMA.

Figure 1: A standardized workflow for building and validating an ARIMA model, illustrating the iterative process of identification, estimation, and diagnostic checking.

Detailed Methodology for ARIMA Model Construction [120] [121]:

• Data Preparation and Stationarity Transformation: The process begins with the collection of a time-series dataset, typically comprising at least 50 monthly or weekly data points to reliably identify patterns [120]. The first critical step is to check the series for stationarity—where statistical properties like mean and variance are constant over time. This is often done using the Augmented Dickey-Fuller (ADF) test [121]. A non-stationary series is transformed by differencing (the "I" in ARIMA), which involves computing the differences between consecutive observations. For seasonal data, seasonal differencing is also applied. This step is repeated until the series is stationary.

• Model Identification and Parameter Estimation: Once the series is stationary, the Autocorrelation Function (ACF) and Partial Autocorrelation Function (PACF) plots of the differenced data are analyzed to identify potential values for the autoregressive order (p) and moving average order (q) [120] [121]. For instance, a truncated PACF plot can suggest the 'p' value, while a truncated ACF plot can suggest the 'q' value. Several ARIMA(p,d,q) models with different (p,q) combinations are then fitted to the data.

• Model Diagnostics and Forecasting: The fitted models are compared using information criteria like the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) and Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC), where lower values indicate a better fit [123] [121]. The best candidate model undergoes diagnostic checking, primarily the Ljung-Box test, to ensure the model residuals are white noise (i.e., uncorrelated and random) [121]. If residuals show patterns, the process returns to the identification phase. The final, validated model is used for forecasting, and its accuracy is evaluated on a hold-out test set using metrics like Root Mean Squared Error (RMSE) and Mean Absolute Percentage Error (MAPE) [123] [122].

Successful forecasting relies not only on statistical expertise but also on a suite of computational tools and data resources. The following table details key components of the research toolkit for scientists in this field.

Table 2: Essential Research Toolkit for Disease Forecasting Studies

Tool/Resource	Function in Research	Example Use-Case in Context
Multiplex PCR Panels	Simultaneous detection of multiple respiratory viral pathogens (e.g., SARS-CoV-2, Influenza, RSV, Rhinovirus) from a single sample [16].	Provides the essential, high-quality, multi-virus incidence data that serves as the primary input for forecasting models analyzing co-circulation and burden [16].
Time Series Databases (e.g., InfluxDB)	Optimized for storing and managing large volumes of time-stamped data, facilitating efficient analysis and forecasting pipelines [124].	Used to handle high-frequency surveillance data streams, such as daily hospital admissions or real-time environmental indicators [124].
Statistical Software (R, Python)	Provides comprehensive libraries and packages (e.g., forecast in R, statsmodels in Python) for building ARIMA, ML, and hybrid models [126] [121].	The primary environment for executing the model-building workflow, from stationarity testing and parameter estimation to forecasting and validation [121] [122].
Automated Machine Learning (AutoML) Platforms	Systematically tests and benchmarks a collection of statistical and ML algorithms to identify the best-performing model for a given dataset automatically [126].	Accelerates model selection and benchmarking, ensuring optimal performance is achieved without manual tuning of every potential algorithm [126].
Environmental Data (Air Quality, Meteorology)	Serves as exogenous variables in models like ARIMAX to explain and predict variations in disease incidence driven by external factors [122].	Integrating PM10 levels with a 5-month lag significantly improved the accuracy of an influenza incidence forecast model in Fuzhou, China [122].

Advanced Integration: From Univariate to Multivariate Forecasting

Building upon the basic ARIMA framework, recent research explores more complex, integrative approaches to enhance predictive power. The logical progression of model sophistication is illustrated below.

Figure 2: The evolution of forecasting models from simple univariate approaches to complex multivariate and hybrid systems that better reflect real-world dynamics.

• Multivariate Forecasting with ARIMAX: The ARIMAX model extends ARIMA by incorporating exogenous variables. For example, a study on influenza incidence integrated air pollutant data (PM~10~) as an exogenous variable, resulting in an ARIMAX model with lower AIC and BIC values than the best-fitting ARIMA model, confirming a superior fit and more accurate prediction [122]. This approach allows researchers to build more causal and explanatory models.

• Leveraging Machine Learning for Complex Patterns: Machine learning models, including AutoML and artificial neural networks (ANNs), can integrate multiple time series as covariates (e.g., laboratory confirmation data for different viruses, age-stratified case counts) to leverage statistical patterns across them [126]. While a study on Severe Acute Respiratory Infection (SARI) hospitalizations found that ML models outperformed naïve seasonal benchmarks, the integration of detailed laboratory data did not consistently improve forecasts, highlighting the challenge of dealing with strong season-to-season variations in viral incidence [126].

• Hybrid Models for Superior Performance: Hybrid models that combine the strengths of different methodologies are emerging as a powerful solution. For instance, a study forecasting cardiovascular mortality in India found that a hybrid of ARIMA and Support Vector Machine (SVM) reduced the Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) by up to 15.6% compared to a standalone ARIMA model [125]. The ARIMA component effectively captured the linear trend, while the SVM model accounted for the complex, non-linear residuals, leading to a more accurate overall forecast.

The objective comparison of forecasting models reveals a clear trade-off between interpretability and complexity. While ARIMA models remain a robust, interpretable choice for short-term forecasting of diseases with stable seasonal patterns, their linear nature is a significant limitation in a dynamic epidemiological landscape [120] [125]. The evidence supports the broader thesis that the future of outbreak forecasting lies in sophisticated hybrid approaches and the integration of diverse data streams.

For researchers and drug development professionals, this implies that reliance on a single model is insufficient. A multi-model strategy is recommended: using ARIMAX to understand the impact of specific environmental drivers [122], and employing ML or hybrid models to generate the most accurate forecasts for complex, multi-virus scenarios and for anticipating acute healthcare burdens, such as hospital bed and ICU demand [126] [125]. As data collection becomes more refined and computational power increases, the development and validation of these advanced, integrative models will be pivotal in transforming public health from a reactive to a proactively prepared discipline.

Comparative Vaccine Effectiveness and its Impact on Population-Level Virus Detection

The emergence of multiple respiratory viruses, including SARS-CoV-2, influenza, and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), has highlighted the critical need for effective vaccination strategies and robust surveillance systems. Understanding comparative vaccine effectiveness (VE) is essential for public health policy, vaccine development, and predicting its subsequent impact on population-level virus detection. This guide provides a systematic comparison of current vaccine performance against major respiratory viruses and analyzes how vaccination influences virological surveillance data, framed within the context of detection rate analysis for multiple respiratory viruses research. The complex interplay between vaccination coverage, waning immunity, and emerging variants creates a dynamic landscape where detection rates reflect not just viral circulation but also the underlying immune status of populations [127] [2]. For researchers and drug development professionals, this synthesis of VE data and its epidemiological consequences provides a critical evidence base for optimizing vaccine formulations and public health interventions.

Vaccine effectiveness measures how well vaccination protects against specified outcomes under real-world conditions, differing from efficacy measured in controlled clinical trials [128]. The table below summarizes the latest comparative effectiveness data for COVID-19, influenza, and RSV immunizations.

Table 1: Comparative Vaccine Effectiveness for Respiratory Viruses (2025-2026 Season)

Virus/Vaccine	Target Population	Outcome	Vaccine Effectiveness (VE)	Key Variables
COVID-19 (mRNA XBB.1.5)	Adults	Hospitalization	46% (95% CI, 34 to 55) [129]	Cohort studies
	Adults	Hospitalization	50% (95% CI, 43 to 57) [129]	Case-control studies
	Immunocompromised Adults	Hospitalization	37% (95% CI, 29 to 44) [129]
COVID-19 (against KP.2)	Unspecified	Symptomatic Disease	68% (95% CI, 42 to 82) [129]	Case-control study
Influenza	Adults (18-64 years)	Hospitalization	48% (95% CI, 39 to 55) [129]	Pooled analysis
	Children	Hospitalization	67% (95% CI, 58 to 75) [129]	Pooled analysis
RSV (Maternal Vaccination)	Infants (via maternal transfer)	Hospitalization	≥68% [129]
RSV (Nirsevimab)	Infants	Hospitalization	≥68% [129]
RSV (Older Adults)	Adults ≥60 years	Hospitalization	≥68% [129]

Several critical patterns emerge from this comparative data. COVID-19 vaccines demonstrate moderate effectiveness against hospitalization, with lower protection observed in immunocompromised adults, highlighting a key population for intervention [129]. The notably higher VE against the KP.2 subvariant suggests that vaccine effectiveness can vary significantly depending on the circulating strain and the degree of immune escape. Influenza vaccines show strong age-dependent effects, with significantly higher protection observed in children compared to adults. RSV immunization strategies demonstrate consistently high effectiveness (≥68%) across different prevention modalities (maternal vaccination, infant monoclonal antibody, and older adult vaccines) [129].

These differences in VE stem from multiple factors, including vaccine technologies (mRNA, protein subunit, live attenuated), viral mutation rates, and host immune status. Furthermore, VE is not static; it can wane over time and is influenced by prior infection history, which now affects most of the population [127]. For researchers interpreting virus detection data, these effectiveness metrics are essential for understanding discrepancies between detected cases and actual disease burden.

Impact of Vaccination on Virus Detection and Epidemiology

Vaccination campaigns significantly alter the epidemiological landscape of respiratory viruses, directly impacting detection rates in surveillance systems. The relationship is complex and manifests in several key areas:

Changing Baseline Immunity and Detection Interpretation

As of 2025, more than 99% of the U.S. population has some baseline immunity to SARS-CoV-2 through vaccination, infection, or both [127]. This high level of population immunity necessitates a shift in how VE is measured and how detection data is interpreted. CDC now primarily focuses on incremental vaccine effectiveness, defined as the added protection a vaccine provides above this baseline immunity [127]. For surveillance, this means that high virus detection rates in a highly vaccinated population may not correlate with severe disease burden, as vaccines provide superior protection against severe outcomes compared to protection against infection per se [127] [128].

Impact on Co-circulation and Co-detection Patterns

Comprehensive surveillance from Mie Prefecture, Japan (2021-2023) revealed that multiple respiratory viruses continued to circulate actively despite the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant epidemic [130]. The study, which analyzed 1,573 valid specimens using real-time PCR, found that SARS-CoV-2 Omicron strains showed a peak positivity of 15-25%, while other viruses like respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) and human rhinovirus/enterovirus (HRV/EV) exhibited annual epidemic peaks of up to 57% [130]. Crucially, multiple virus detections were significantly more frequent in children under 2 years, with up to six different viruses detected simultaneously in children under 5 [130]. This suggests that vaccination's impact on detection is age-stratified and varies by virus.

Altered Seasonal Patterns and Detection Timing

The COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent vaccination efforts have disrupted the traditional seasonality of many respiratory viruses. A large retrospective analysis of 302,680 pediatric respiratory samples from Hangzhou (2019-2023) found statistically significant differences in the detection rates of influenza A, influenza B, RSV, and adenovirus before, during, and after the COVID-19 pandemic [2]. Furthermore, the epidemic peaks for these viruses shifted, indicating that non-pharmaceutical interventions and building population immunity through vaccination and infection can have lasting effects on the temporal dynamics of virus detection [2]. For surveillance systems, this necessitates flexible models that can adapt to these altered seasonal patterns.

Implications for Environmental Detection

Vaccination status within a community indirectly affects environmental virus detection. A 2025 study monitoring surface contamination in a university setting in Central Italy found that 16% of 400 environmental swabs were positive for respiratory virus RNA (SARS-CoV-2, Flu A/B, RSV A/B) [131]. The positive rate dropped from 20% to 8% over the study period, and contamination frequency was higher in small classrooms (22%) than in large ones (11%) [131]. This suggests that vaccination coverage in a population can reduce environmental viral load, thereby reducing a potential transmission route. For researchers, environmental monitoring serves as a non-invasive complement to clinical surveillance, reflecting community transmission levels that are themselves influenced by vaccination rates.

Experimental Protocols for Virus Detection and Vaccine Effectiveness Studies

To ensure comparability and reliability of data, researchers employ standardized protocols for assessing vaccine effectiveness and virus detection. The following sections detail key methodological approaches.

Vaccine Effectiveness Study Design

CDC's COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness program employs observational studies conducted through public health and academic partners [127]. The core methodologies include:

• Study Designs: Test-negative case-control designs and retrospective cohort studies are commonly used to minimize bias [127] [129].
• Data Sources: Information is collected through comprehensive systems including public health surveillance, electronic health records (EHR), and prospective studies [127].
• Outcome Measures: Studies focus on critical outcomes including COVID-19-associated hospitalization, emergency department/urgent care visits, and death, with adjustments for confounders like age, comorbidities, and prior infection history [127].
• Laboratory Confirmation: Infection outcomes are typically confirmed through molecular testing (RT-PCR) or antigen tests [127].

Table 2: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Respiratory Virus Detection

Research Reagent	Manufacturer/Catalog Number	Primary Function in Analysis
MagMAX Viral/Pathogen Nucleic Acid Isolation Kit	Thermo Fisher Scientific (#A48310)	Nucleic acid extraction from clinical specimens [130]
FTD Respiratory Pathogens 21 Plus Kit	Siemens (#11373924)	Multiplex real-time PCR detection of 19 respiratory viruses [130]
Transport Medium (UT-300)	Sugiyama-Gen Co., Ltd.	Preservation of specimen integrity during storage and transport [130]
Virus Nucleic Acid Isolation Kit (PureDireX)	Not specified	Nucleic acid extraction from environmental surface samples [131]
Zymo Research VTM / Zybio Inc VTM	Zymo Research; Zybio Inc	Viral transport medium for inactivation and stabilization of nucleic acids [131]

Molecular Detection of Respiratory Viruses

The following workflow outlines a comprehensive protocol for detecting multiple respiratory viruses in clinical specimens, based on established methodologies [130]:

Diagram 1: Virus Detection Workflow

This protocol enables simultaneous detection of 19 respiratory viruses, including SARS-CoV-2, influenza A/B, RSV, human rhinovirus, adenovirus, and seasonal coronaviruses [130]. The critical validation step ensures results are only considered valid when negative controls remain below the cycle threshold and both positive and internal controls show Ct values below 34, with a sample considered positive at Ct <40 [130].

Environmental Surface Monitoring Protocol

Environmental surveillance provides complementary data on community virus circulation. The following protocol details surface sampling for respiratory viruses:

Diagram 2: Surface Sampling Process

This environmental monitoring approach has demonstrated high sensitivity, with 98% of results being valid, and can detect low copy numbers of viral RNA on high-touch surfaces [131]. This methodology is particularly valuable for understanding virus transmission dynamics in community settings where clinical testing may be limited.

Discussion and Research Implications

The comparative analysis of vaccine effectiveness reveals a complex landscape where different vaccine platforms provide varying levels of protection against distinct respiratory viruses. These differences directly influence population-level detection data that researchers must account for in their analyses. Several key implications emerge for the research community:

First, the moderate effectiveness of current COVID-19 vaccines (46-50% against hospitalization) compared to the higher effectiveness of RSV vaccines (≥68%) and influenza vaccines in children (67%) suggests that vaccine technology platforms and pathogen characteristics both play crucial roles in determining protection levels [129]. This has direct implications for drug development professionals prioritizing platform investments and antigen selection.

Second, the demonstrated waning of immunity and the emergence of immune-evading variants necessitate ongoing VE monitoring and regular vaccine updates [127] [8]. The finding that COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness against the KP.2 subvariant was 68% - potentially higher than against earlier variants - highlights that VE is not static and that variant-specific responses can be successful [129].

Third, the high frequency of multiple virus co-detections, particularly in pediatric populations, underscores the need for comprehensive multiplex testing approaches rather than single-pathogen tests [130]. Research on viral interference and disease severity in co-infection scenarios represents a critical frontier.

Finally, environmental monitoring techniques offer a promising non-invasive surveillance tool that can provide early warning signals of community transmission [131]. As vaccination coverage increases, environmental detection may become increasingly important for tracking residual viral circulation that might be missed by clinical surveillance focused on severe outcomes.

For researchers and drug development professionals, these findings highlight the importance of integrated approaches that combine VE studies, clinical outcome tracking, environmental surveillance, and genomic analysis to fully understand the complex interplay between vaccination and virus detection at the population level.

Conclusion

The accurate analysis of respiratory virus detection rates hinges on an integrated approach that combines robust, virus-optimized sampling with advanced multiplex molecular diagnostics. The post-pandemic era has underscored the necessity of flexible surveillance systems capable of tracking multiple cocirculating pathogens amidst shifting seasonal patterns. Future directions must prioritize the development of accessible, rapid diagnostic platforms that can be deployed at the point of care without sacrificing the sensitivity required for effective clinical and public health decision-making. For researchers and drug developers, these insights are pivotal for identifying transmission hotspots, validating new antiviral therapeutics and vaccines, and ultimately mitigating the significant global burden of respiratory viral diseases.

References

• 1. Changes to Endemic Respiratory Virus Circulation and ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12464939/]
• 2. The epidemiological analysis of respiratory virus infections ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168170225000358]
• 3. The Unprecedented Influenza Epidemic of 2024/2025 [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12631739/]
• 4. Novel Immunologic Surveillance Study Provides New ... [https://news.unchealthcare.org/2025/08/novel-immunologic-surveillance-study-provides-new-insights-into-post-pandemic-return-of-respiratory-viruses/]
• 5. Your guide to the 2025 flu, COVID-19 and RSV season [https://newsroom.osfhealthcare.org/your-guide-to-the-2025-2026-respiratory-illness-season/]
• 6. Statistical Analysis of Common Respiratory Viruses Reveals ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10433823/]
• 7. Development of a respiratory virus risk model with ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-025-00894-4]
• 8. 2025-2026 Respiratory Disease Season Outlook | CFA [https://www.cdc.gov/cfa-qualitative-assessments/php/data-research/season-outlook25-26.html]
• 9. Respiratory Virus Prevalence Across Pre-, During-, and ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12390457/]
• 10. 2025 Outlook: Emerging Viruses & Next-Gen Respiratory DX [https://www.meridianbioscience.com/lifescience-blog/emerging-viruses-next-generation-of-respiratory-diagnostics-2025-outlook/]
• 11. Uncovering the Post-Pandemic Timing of Influenza, RSV, ... [https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2025.08.21.25333432v1.full]
• 12. Pathways to strengthening the epidemic intelligence ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11871633/]
• 13. Respiratory Virus Activity Levels [https://www.cdc.gov/respiratory-viruses/data/activity-levels.html]
• 14. A Framework for Evaluating the Use of Surveillance ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12307093/]
• 15. CDC's Vision for Using Artificial Intelligence in Public Health [https://www.cdc.gov/data-modernization/php/ai/cdcs-vision-for-use-of-artificial-intelligence-in-public-health.html]
• 16. Temporal dynamics and forecasting of respiratory viral ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12507870/]
• 17. Surveillance for emerging respiratory viruses - PubMed Central [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7106459/]
• 18. An integrated surveillance study of SARS-CoV-2, influenza ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2950590925000903]
• 19. WHO upgrades its public health intelligence system to ... [https://www.who.int/news/item/13-10-2025-who-upgrades-its-public-health-intelligence-system-to-boost-global-health-security]
• 20. Artificial intelligence in public health: promises, challenges ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2468266725000362]
• 21. The added value of diagnostics to characterize age-specific ... [https://bmcinfectdis.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12879-025-10693-0]
• 22. The epidemiological analysis of respiratory virus infections in ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11979517/]
• 23. Clinical features and outcomes of viral respiratory ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-19236-8]
• 24. RSV Testing Patterns and Characteristics Associated with ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12480313/]
• 25. Epidemiological trends and pathogen analysis of pediatric ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/public-health/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2025.1557076/full]
• 26. A nationwide comparative study of pediatric and adult ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-18175-8]
• 27. Climate change is spreading dengue, chikungunya and ... [https://climade.health/2025/11/12/climate-change-is-spreading-dengue-chikungunya-and-west-nile-virus-worldwide/]
• 28. International air travel—especially packed flights—fueled ... [https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/covid-19/international-air-travel-especially-packed-flights-fueled-flu-covid-19-spread-during]
• 29. Global Disease Outbreaks: A 2025 Snapshot and ... [https://www.kff.org/global-health-policy/global-disease-outbreaks-a-2025-snapshot-and-implications-for-the-u-s/]
• 30. Climate, Vectors and Virus Keep Chikungunya a Global ... [https://asm.org/articles/2025/november/climate-vectors-viruses-chikungunya-global-focus]
• 31. The Global Burden of RSV [https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-global-burden-of-rsv/]
• 32. Travel Health Notices [https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/travel/notices]
• 33. Climate warming and influenza dynamics: the modulating ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-025-00968-3]
• 34. Comparison of Nasal Swabs, Nasopharyngeal ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10151282/]
• 35. Comparison between Saliva and Nasopharyngeal Swab ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5228234/]
• 36. Comparison of Nasopharyngeal Swab v. ... [https://reaganudall.org/clinical-trial/comparison-nasopharyngeal-swab-v-nasopharyngeal-saline-wash-or-saliva-collection]
• 37. Comparison of detection rate of 16 sampling methods for ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7654123/]
• 38. Comparison of four nasal sampling methods for the detection ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7112903/]
• 39. Saliva and Anterior Nasal Samples for Detecting ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12606524/]
• 40. Use of saliva as an alternative diagnostic method for ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772707623000383]
• 41. High Rates of Detection of Respiratory Viruses in the Nasal ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3592049/]
• 42. Comparison of sputum and nasopharyngeal swabs for ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7166652/]
• 43. The prevalence and role of human metapneumovirus in ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589537025004134]
• 44. Protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of the ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41405-025-00320-0]
• 45. Viral infections and the risk of neurodegenerative diseases [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12514224/]
• 46. Seasonal RTI Vaccinations in Immunocompromised Patients [https://www.idsociety.org/Seasonal-RTI-Vaccinations-in-Immunocompromised-Patients/]
• 47. Nasal biomarker testing to rule out viral respiratory ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12216728/]
• 48. Advancing Drug Resistance Detection [https://www.mdpi.com/2813-9038/2/3/14]
• 49. A new biomarker combination differentiates viral from ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-20208-1]
• 50. Fast but accurate: a systematic review and meta-analysis ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/microbiology/articles/10.3389/fmicb.2025.1703247/full]
• 51. Development and clinical validation of a novel multiplex ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-16434-2]
• 52. Pathogen detection by multiplex PCR: A comparative study ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212534525001212]
• 53. Multicenter evaluation of fast multiplex PCR for detection of ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12528164/]
• 54. Comparative Evaluation of a multiplex PCR panel for high ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1201971225003698]
• 55. Clinical Evaluation of a Multiplex PCR Assay for ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36678368/]
• 56. Multiplex PCR: Optimization and Application in Diagnostic ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC88949/]
• 57. Development and validation of a multiplex PCR assay with ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-07337-3]
• 58. Monitoring Report: Respiratory Viruses - September 2025 ... [https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.11.21.24317745v6.full]
• 59. Key Insights into Respiratory Virus Testing: Sensitivity and ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2607/13/1/63]
• 60. Current practices for assessing usability of novel point-of-care ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12336581/]
• 61. Point-of-care testing for respiratory viruses in adults [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7172689/]
• 62. Diagnostic utility of rapid antigen testing as point-of-care ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0732889324004243]
• 63. Real-World Performance of COVID-19 Antigen Tests [https://xmed.jmir.org/2025/1/e68376]
• 64. Real-world clinical impact of in-house PCR testing [https://www.cepheid.com/en-US/insights/insight-hub/respiratory-health/2025/04/real-world-clinical-impact-of-in-house-pcr-testing.html]
• 65. Implementation of Point-of-Care PCR-testing for the diagnosis ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12306790/]
• 66. User experience analysis of AbC-19 Rapid Test via lateral ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-93262-0]
• 67. Multiplexed CRISPR-based microfluidic platform for clinical ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-022-01734-1]
• 68. 2025 Outlook: Emerging Viruses & Next-Gen Respiratory DX [https://www.meridianbioscience.com/cn/lifescience-blog/emerging-viruses-next-generation-of-respiratory-diagnostics-2025-outlook/]
• 69. A Critical Review of the CRISPR-Cas Technology ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12267969/]
• 70. Next-Generation Nucleic Acid-Based Diagnostics for Viral ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12388196/]
• 71. Space-coded microchip for multiplexed respiratory virus ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0039914025003054]
• 72. How to Pick the Best CRISPR Data Analysis Method for ... [https://www.synthego.com/guide/how-to-use-crispr/analysis-methods/]
• 73. Post-recovery viral shedding shapes wastewater-based ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12098667/]
• 74. Analysis of respiratory virus detection in hospitalized children ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10623845/]
• 75. Co-infection dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 and respiratory ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0163445325000684]
• 76. Analysis of respiratory pathogen detection in hospitalized ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-82660-9]
• 77. The differences in virus shedding time between the Delta ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/public-health/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2023.1132643/full]
• 78. Temporal dynamics in viral shedding and transmissibility of ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0869-5]
• 79. Estimated transmission dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 variants ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-62790-y]
• 80. Pre-analytical properties of different respiratory viruses for ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1871678423000730]
• 81. Pre-analytical sample stabilization by different ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1871678422000279]
• 82. Laboratory testing for respiratory viruses for the clinician [https://www.ccjm.org/content/91/9_suppl_1/S42]
• 83. Virology Specimen Collection Guidelines [https://www.laboratoryalliance.com/healthcare-providers/laboratory-services/specimen-collection-documents/virology-specimen-collection-guidelines/]
• 84. Transport of viral specimens - PMC - NIH [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC358147/]
• 85. Interim Guidelines for Collecting and Handling of Clinical ... [https://www.cdc.gov/covid/hcp/clinical-care/clinical-specimen-guidelines.html]
• 86. Impact of Early Detection of Respiratory Viruses by ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4963510/]
• 87. Distinguishing viruses responsible for influenza-like illness [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022519322001436]
• 88. Comparative Performance of Digital PCR and Real-Time RT ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12474457/]
• 89. Performance comparison of three commercial multiplex ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11369576/]
• 90. tNGS Reveals Predominant Mixed Viral Infections in a ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12558357/]
• 91. Applying symptom dynamics to accurately predict influenza ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9835452/]
• 92. Biases in Routine Influenza Surveillance Indicators Used to ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11608885/]
• 93. How Multiplex Assays Works — In One Simple Flow (2025) [https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/how-multiplex-assays-works-one-simple-flow-2025-plureis-advisors-hcqvc/]
• 94. Multiplex Assays Market Size to Hit USD 6.75 Billion by 2034 [https://www.precedenceresearch.com/multiplex-assays-market]
• 95. Multi-Plex Immunoassays Market Growth & Forecast 2025- ... [https://www.datamintelligence.com/research-report/multi-plex-immunoassays-market]
• 96. Reagent efficiency and analytical sensitivity optimization ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405844025000027]
• 97. Multiplex PCR assays market to double by 2035, report says [https://www.linkedin.com/posts/molecular-designs_multiplex-pcr-assays-market-poised-for-rapid-activity-7383555074339471360-qbPb]
• 98. Multiplex Testing Reagents Market Global Review [https://www.htfmarketintelligence.com/press-release/global-multiplex-testing-reagents-market]
• 99. One Assay, Nine Targets: Advancing Viral Surveillance ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12529474/]
• 100. of Comparative salivary and commercially... performance multiplex [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8502080/]
• 101. Computable phenotypes to identify respiratory viral ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-02183-9]
• 102. Electronic Health Record–Based Algorithm for Monitoring ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11138993/]
• 103. Monitoring Report: Respiratory Viruses – October 2025 Data [https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.11.21.24317745v7]
• 104. A high-throughput human tissue model for respiratory viruses [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40581228/]
• 105. Comparison of detection rate of 16 sampling methods for ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33168521/]
• 106. Comparison of mid-turbinate nasal and combined ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1386653225000435]
• 107. Methodic aspects of influenza and respiratory syncytial ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-13998-x]
• 108. Systematic review and meta-analysis of methodological ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-025-01180-z]
• 109. Respiratory Viruses in Wastewater Compared with Clinical ... [https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/30/1/23-1011_article]
• 110. Difference between real world practice and clinical ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1876034124003150]
• 111. Microfluidic-based virus detection methods for respiratory ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7992628/]
• 112. Advancing healthcare through laboratory on a chip technology [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11577522/]
• 113. Lab on chip for medical and clinical applications [https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2025/sd/d5sd00096c]
• 114. Recent advancements in microfluidic-based biosensors for ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590137024000530]
• 115. Biosensors for the detection of respiratory viruses: A review [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666831920300072]
• 116. Artificial intelligence in hospital infection prevention [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12001280/]
• 117. AI Methods Tailored to Influenza, RSV, HIV, and SARS-CoV-2 [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12389194/]
• 118. Machine learning-based clinical decision support for ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/medicine/articles/10.3389/fmed.2023.1213411/full]
• 119. Development of a Machine Learning-Based Predictive ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2673-7426/5/4/57]
• 120. Disease management with ARIMA model in time series [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4872983/]
• 121. Application of the ARIMA Model in Forecasting ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9268244/]
• 122. Exploring the influence of environmental indicators and ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/public-health/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2024.1441240/full]
• 123. ARIMA model for predicting chronic kidney disease and ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9801144/]
• 124. Time series forecasting: 2025 complete guide [https://www.influxdata.com/time-series-forecasting-methods/]
• 125. Hybrid time series and machine learning models for ... [https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-025-23318-7]
• 126. Forecasting severe respiratory disease hospitalizations using ... [https://bmcmedinformdecismak.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12911-024-02702-0]
• 127. Vaccine Effectiveness | COVID-19 [https://www.cdc.gov/covid/php/surveillance/vaccine-effectiveness.html]
• 128. Vaccine efficacy, effectiveness and protection [https://www.who.int/news-room/feature-stories/detail/vaccine-efficacy-effectiveness-and-protection]
• 129. Updated Evidence for Covid-19, RSV, and Influenza ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41160817/]
• 130. Multiple Respiratory Virus Detection in Acute ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11945925/]
• 131. Simultaneous detection of respiratory virus RNA on ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-22296-5]