MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3007311884 · doi:10.1177/2054358120907816

Utility of Rapid Influenza Molecular Testing in an Outpatient Hemodialysis Unit: A Prospective Cohort Study

2020· article· en· W3007311884 on OpenAlexafffund
Matthew Kadatz, Michael Payne, Mercedeh Kiaii, Marc G. Romney, Loretta Karakas, Tanya Lawson, S. Marchuk, John S. Gill, Christopher F. Lowe

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Kidney Health and Disease · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfluenza Virus Research Studies
Canadian institutionsCentre for Advancing Health OutcomesSt. Paul's HospitalProvidence Health CareUniversity of British Columbia
FundersRoche DiagnosticsUniversity of British Columbia
KeywordsMedicineHemodialysisDialysisInternal medicineEmergency medicineProspective cohort studyEmergency departmentIntensive care medicineMedical prescriptionCohort

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Early initiation of antiviral therapy for individuals at risk for severe influenza infection is important for improving patient outcomes. Current guidelines recommend empiric antiviral therapy for patients with end-stage kidney disease presenting with suspected influenza infection. Rapid molecular influenza assays may reduce diagnostic uncertainty and improve patient outcomes by providing faster diagnostics compared to traditional batched polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing. Objective: To determine the utility of implementing a rapid influenza PCR assay compared to the standard of care in a hemodialysis unit. Design: This is a prospective cohort study. Setting: A hospital-based dialysis unit in a tertiary care hospital. Patients: Adult patients with end-stage kidney disease on intermittent hemodialysis. Measurements: Patient characteristics, influenza PCR swab results, antibiotic prescriptions, antiviral prescriptions, emergency room visits and hospitalizations. Methods: From November 1, 2017 to March 31, 2018, we assigned samples collected from a single center, hemodialysis unit to be processed using a rapid influenza PCR (cobas® Influenza A/B & respiratory syncytial virus assay) or the standard of care (in-house developed multiplex PCR). Samples were assigned to the rapid PCR if the patient received dialysis treatment in the morning dialysis shift, while the remainder were processed as per standard of care. Study outcomes included the time from collection to result of nasopharyngeal swab, prescription of influenza antiviral therapy, time to receiving prescription, and the need for emergency department visit or hospitalization within 2 weeks of presentation. Results: During the study period, 44 patients were assessed (14 with the rapid PCR and 30 with the standard of care assay). Compared to conventional testing, the time to result was shorter using rapid PCR compared to conventional testing (2.3 vs 22.6 hours, P < .0001). Individuals who were tested using the rapid PCR had a tendency to shorter time to receiving antiviral prescriptions (0.7 days vs 2.1 days, P = .11), and fewer emergency department visits (7.1% vs 30%, P = .13) but no difference in hospitalizations (14.3% vs 30%, P = .46) within 2 weeks of testing. Limitations: This is a single center non-randomized study with a relatively small sample size. Patients who were tested using the standard of care assay experienced a delay in the prescription of antiviral therapy which deviates from recommended clinical practice. Conclusions: Rapid influenza molecular testing in the hemodialysis unit was associated with a shorter time to a reportable result and with a tendency to reduced time to prescription of antiviral therapy. Rapid molecular testing should be compared with standard of care (empiric therapy) in terms of economic costs, adverse events, and influenza-related outcomes.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.105
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.273 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Kidney Health and DiseaseSame topicInfluenza Virus Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207