MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3196012090 · doi:10.1101/2021.08.23.21262499

Comparative analyses of FDA EUA-approved rapid antigen tests and RT-PCR for COVID-19 quarantine and surveillance-based isolation

2021· preprint· en· W3196012090 on OpenAlexafffund
Chad R. Wells, Abhishek Pandey, Seyed M. Moghadas, Burton H. Singer, Gary R. Krieger, Richard Heron, D. Turner, Justin P. Abshire, Kimberly M. Phillips, A Michael Donoghue, Alison P. Galvani, Jeffrey P. Townsend

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2021
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSARS-CoV-2 detection and testing
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNotsew Orm Sands Foundation
KeywordsQuarantineIsolation (microbiology)Transmission (telecommunications)MedicineTest (biology)False positive paradoxDiagnostic testCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)Test strategyTurnaround timeGold standard (test)StatisticsVirologyComputer scienceEmergency medicineBiologyInternal medicineDiseaseBioinformaticsInfectious disease (medical specialty)TelecommunicationsPathologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Rapid antigen (RA) tests are being increasingly employed to detect SARS-CoV-2 infections in quarantine and surveillance. Prior research has focused on RT-PCR testing, a single RA test, or generic diagnostic characteristics of RA tests in assessing testing strategies. Methods For 18 RA tests with emergency use authorization from the United States of America FDA and an RT-PCR test, we conducted a comparative analysis of the post-quarantine transmission, the effective reproduction number during serial testing, and the false-positive rates. To quantify the extent of transmission, we developed an analytical mathematical framework informed by COVID-19 infectiousness, test specificity, and temporal diagnostic sensitivity data. Results We demonstrate that the relative effectiveness of RA and RT-PCR tests in reducing post-quarantine transmission depends on the quarantine duration and the turnaround time of testing results. For quarantines of two days or shorter, conducting a RA test on exit from quarantine reduces onward transmission more than a single RT-PCR test (with a 24-h delay) conducted upon exit. Applied to a complementary approach of performing serial testing at a specified frequency paired with isolation of positives, we have shown that RA tests outperform RT-PCR with a 24-h delay. The results from our modeling framework are consistent with quarantine and serial testing data collected from a remote industry setting. Conclusions These RA test-specific results are an important component of the tool set for policy decision-making, and demonstrate that judicious selection of an appropriate RA test can supply a viable alternative to RT-PCR in efforts to control the spread of disease. Plain language summary Previous research has determined optimal timing for testing in quarantine and the utility of different frequencies of testing for disease surveillance using RT-PCR and generalized rapid antigen tests. However, these strategies can depend on the specific rapid antigen test used. By examining 18 rapid antigen tests, we demonstrate that a single rapid antigen test performs better than RT-PCR when quarantines are two days or less in duration. In the context of disease surveillance, the ability of a rapid antigen test to provide results quickly counteracts its lower sensitivity with potentially more false positives. These analytical results based on highly controlled test validation were consistent with real-world data obtained from quarantine and serial testing in an industrial setting.

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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.097
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.182
GPT teacher head0.411
Teacher spread0.229 · 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.

Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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