Questionnaire‐based vs universal PCR testing for SARS‐CoV‐2 in women admitted for delivery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It has been suggested that women admitted for delivery should have universal PCR testing for SARS-CoV-2. Yet, the considerable difference in the incidence of COVID-19 between different geographic regions may affect screening strategies. Therefore, we aimed to compare questionnaire-based testing versus universal PCR testing for SARS-CoV-2 in women admitted for delivery. METHODS: A prospective cohort study of women admitted for delivery at a single center during a four-week period (April 22-May 25, 2020). All women completed a questionnaire about COVID-19 signs, symptoms, or risk factors, and a nasopharyngeal swab for PCR for SARS-CoV-2. Women who were flagged as suspected COVID-19 by the questionnaire (questionnaire-positive) were compared with women who were not flagged by the questionnaire (questionnaire-negative). RESULTS: Overall, 446 women were eligible for analysis, of which 54 (12.1%) were questionnaire-positive. PCR swab detected SARS-CoV-2 in four (0.9%) women: 3 of 392 (0.8%) in the questionnaire-negative group, and 1 of 54 (1.9%) in the questionnaire-positive group (P = .43), yielding a number needed to screen of 92 (95% CI 62-177). In 96% of the cases, the PCR results were obtained only in the postpartum period. No positive PCR results were obtained from neonatal testing for SARS-CoV-2. The sensitivity of the questionnaire was 75.0%, and the negative predictive value was 99.7%. CONCLUSIONS: Although the rate of positive PCR results was not significantly different between the groups, the number needed to screen is considerably high. The use of questionnaire-based PCR testing in areas with low incidence of COVID-19 allows for a reasonable allocation of resources and is easy to implement.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".