Feasibility and utility of rapid antigen testing for COVID-19 in a university residence: a cross sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Importance Understanding feasibility of rapid testing in congregate living setting provides critical data to reduce the risk of outbreaks in these settings. Objective Use rapid antigen screening to detect SARS-CoV-2 in an asymptomatic group of university students and staff. Design Cross-sectional Setting University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada. Participants Students and staff living or working in congregate housing. Intervention Health care professional administered rapid antigen test Main Outcomes and measures Use of BD Veritor rapid antigen testing and asymptomatic participants’ experiences with rapid testing Results A total of 3536 BD Veritor tests were completed in 1141 unique individuals. One third of participants completed between two to four tests and 21% were screened five or more times. The mean number of tests completed per person was three. The mean length of time between those who had more than one test was seven days. There were eight false positives and 25 PCR confirmed COVID-19 positive individuals identified through this work. All individuals reported having no symptoms that they attributed to COVID-19. Almost all (n=22, 88%) COVID-19 positive cases were found in male participants. A total of 86 additional students from multiple different student residences (n=9) were asked to self-isolate while they waited for their COVID-19 diagnostic test results. An average of seven additional students positive for COVID-19 living in congregate housing were identified through contact tracing by finding one positive case. Conclusions and relevance Rapid testing is a relatively inexpensive and operationally easy method of identifying asymptomatic individuals with COVID-19.
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 | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".