Comparative Analyses of Three Point-of-Care Urine Drug Test Devices’ Performance Characteristics for Use in Ambulatory Clinic Settings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Urine drug testing (UDT) is a standard practice used for monitoring controlled and illicit substances in ambulatory care patients. Point-of-care (POC) UDTs are useful tools that allow for drug identification within minutes, providing rapid and objective diagnostic assistance for clinicians. The objective of this study was to evaluate the performance characteristics of 3 different POC UDT devices compared to reference methods. METHODS: A total of 106 residual urine specimens were collected to evaluate the 3 POC UDT devices: the Profile®-V MEDTOX Scan® drugs of abuse test, Quidel Triage® TOX Drug screen, and Quidel Triage Rapid OXY-BUP-MDMA panel. Device performance was assessed by their ability to identify drug classes/compounds compared to manufacturer and reference method (mass spectrometry) cutoffs. RESULTS: The results from quantitative mass spectrometry showed that 77% (84/106) of the samples were positive for one or more drugs. Each device had variable performance across each drug class. Overall, the specificity of the Profile-V MEDTOX Scan test was 90.1%, while the Quidel Triage TOX Drug Screen and Rapid OXY-BUP-MDMA devices had specificities of 89.0% and 50.0% using their respective manufacturer-stated cutoffs. Overall sensitivity was determined to be 98.6%, 97.0%, and 100% for the Profile-V MEDTOX Scan, Quidel Triage TOX Drug Screen, and Rapid OXY-BUP-MDMA, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Of the 3 POC UDT devices evaluated, the Profile-V MEDTOX Scan demonstrated the best overall sensitivity and specificity compared to reference methods. False positive and negative results are possible with UDTs, ultimately the best device may depend on patient population and drugs of interest.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".