MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3016697910 · doi:10.3390/jrfm13040077

Is One Diagnostic Test for COVID-19 Enough?

2020· article· en· W3016697910 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Michael McAleer

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCOVID-19 Clinical Research Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiagnostic testCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Isolation (microbiology)Test (biology)Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)DiseaseSocial distanceMedicine2019-20 coronavirus outbreakIntensive care medicineVirologyPediatricsPathologyInfectious disease (medical specialty)BiologyBioinformaticsOutbreak

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is no doubt about the importance of diagnostic testing in an emergency; specifically, which range of tests is available, where and when they are dispensed, and who might be tested using laboratory-developed tests, or other diagnostic tests including experimental tests. This includes testing for the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes the COVID-19 disease. Testing is essential to “flatten the curve” of the number of confirmed positive cases of the disease, in addition to handwashing, isolation, and social distancing, among other essential measures. Is one diagnostic test enough to obtain the correct decision about a confirmed positive outcome?

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)0.056
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.235
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score0.296

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0560.235
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.007
Scholarly communication0.0070.015
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0160.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.005

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.326 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations6
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of risk and financial management→Same topicCOVID-19 Clinical Research Studies→French-language works237,207→