MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3115420319 · doi:10.1101/2020.12.24.20248786

Acceptable Performance of the Abbott ID NOW Among Symptomatic Individuals with Confirmed COVID-19

2020· preprint· en· W3115420319 on OpenAlexafffund
William Stokes, Byron M. Berenger, Takshveer Singh, Ifueko Adeghe, Angela Schneider, Danielle Portnoy, Teagan King, Brittney Scott, Kanti Pabbaraju, Sandy Shokoples, Anita Wong, Kara Gill, LeeAnn Turnbull, Jia Hu, Graham Tipples

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2020
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSARS-CoV-2 detection and testing
Canadian institutionsAlberta Health ServicesUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of Alberta
FundersPublic Health AgencyPublic Health Agency of CanadaAlberta Precision LaboratoriesAlberta Health Services
KeywordsCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)MedicineSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)Confidence intervalThroatPandemicFood and drug administration2019-20 coronavirus outbreakPediatricsInternal medicineVirologySurgeryMedical emergencyDiseaseInfectious disease (medical specialty)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION Point of care diagnostic tests for SARS-CoV-2, such as the ID NOW, have great potential to help combat the COVID-19 pandemic. The ID NOW is approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in symptomatic individuals within the first 7 days of symptom onset for COVID-19 if tested within 1 hour of specimen collection. However, clinical data on the performance of the ID NOW is limited, with many studies deviating from the manufacturer’s instructions and/or having small sample size. METHODS Adults with COVID-19 in the community or hospital were recruited into the study. Paired throat swabs were collected, with one throat swab transported immediately in an empty sterile tube to the laboratory for ID NOW testing, and the other transported in universal transport media and tested by an in-house SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR assay targeting the E-gene. Positive percent agreement (PPA) was calculated. RESULTS 133 individuals were included in the study. 129 samples were positive on either the ID NOW and/or RT-PCR. Assuming any positive result on either assay represents a true positive, PPA of the ID NOW compared to RT-PCR with 95% confidence intervals was 89.1% [82.0% - 94.1%] and 91.6% [85.1% - 95.9%], respectively. When analyzing individuals with symptoms ≤ 7 days and who had the ID NOW performed within an hour, ID NOW PPA increased to 98.2%. DISCUSSION In this study, SARS-CoV-2 results from the ID NOW were reliable, especially when testing was adhered to manufacturer’s recommendations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.280
Threshold uncertainty score0.909

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations7
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxivSame topicSARS-CoV-2 detection and testingFrench-language works237,207