MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3136876193 · doi:10.1515/cclm-2021-0234

Assay requirements for COVID-19 testing: serology vs. rapid antigen tests

2021· article· en· W3136876193 on OpenAlexaff
Ioannis Prassas, Clare Fiala, Eleftherios P. Diamandis

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM) · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSARS-CoV-2 detection and testing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health NetworkMount Sinai Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSerologyCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)Gold standard (test)AntigenVirologyImmunologyPandemicMedicineDiagnostic test2019-20 coronavirus outbreakAntibodyDiseaseBiologyInfectious disease (medical specialty)Internal medicinePediatricsOutbreak

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To the Editor, Apart from the molecular diagnostic PCR test (gold standard), there are two other types of SARS-COV-2-related tests that are fundamental for our battle against the COVID-19 pandemic: a. Serological tests measure host antibodies against SARS-COV-2 to delineate possible past infection.These tests can also be used to assess disease prevalence and monitor the dynamics of individual immunological responses over time [1].b.Rapid antigen tests measure SARS-COV-2 proteins to determine the putative COVID-19 contagiousness state.The usefulness of frequent COVID-19 antigen testing through inexpensive, simple and rapid tests has been established [2].These tests can contribute tremendously to COVID-19 infection control, even if their analytical sensitivity is two to three orders of magnitude lower than the benchmark PCR test [2].

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)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.071
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.096

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.071
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0070.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.005

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 head0.206
GPT teacher head0.447
Teacher spread0.241 · 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
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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM)Same topicSARS-CoV-2 detection and testingFrench-language works237,207