Understanding feasibility of rapid antigen testing in congregate living settings
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Context: In Canada, there is currently no universal (federal or provincial) public health policy for systematic COVID-19 screening for those living in congregate housing.Understanding feasibility of rapid testing in congregate living setting provides critical data to reduce the risk of outbreaks in these settings. Objective: Use rapid antigen screening to detect SARS-CoV-2 in an asymptomatic group of university students and staff. Design: Cross-sectional study where we used rapid antigen testing from February to April, 2021. A survey was administered during the last three weeks of the study. Setting: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada. Participants: Asymptomatic students and staff living or working in UBC owned and operated student residences. It was also open to asymptomatic students living on campus in privately owned housing and varsity athletes. Outcome Measures: Use of BD Veritor rapid antigen test and asymptomatic participants’ experiences with rapid testing for SARS-CoV-2. Results: A total of 3536 BD Veritor tests were completed in 1141 unique individuals. The BD Veritor sensitivity in a sample of 136 was 100% with a specificity of 93%. The positive predictive value was 76% and negative predictive value was 100%. One third of participants completed between two to four tests and 21% were screened five or more times. The mean number of tests completed per person was three. The mean length of time between those who had more than one test was seven days. There were eight false positives and 25 PCR confirmed COVID-19 positive individuals identified through this work. All individuals reported having no symptoms that they attributed to COVID-19. Almost all (n=22, 88%) COVID-19 positive cases were found in male participants. A total of 86 additional students from multiple different student residences (n=9) were asked to self-isolate while they waited for their COVID-19 diagnostic test results. An average of seven additional students positive for COVID-19 living in congregate housing were identified through contact tracing by finding one positive case. Almost all (98%) of survey participants found rapid testing acceptable/very acceptable. Two-thirds reported reasons for returning included easy access, quick, painless and results given the day of testing. Conclusion: Rapid testing as a screening tool is accurate in detecting active COVID-19 infection, relatively inexpensive and operationally feasible in identifying asymptomatic individuals.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,008 | 0,036 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».