Evaluation of real-life use of Point-Of-Care Rapid Antigen TEsting for SARS-CoV-2 in schools (EPOCRATES)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background We evaluated the use of rapid antigen detection tests (RADT) for the diagnosis of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in school settings to determine RADT’s performance compared to PCR. Methods In this real-world, prospective observational cohort study, high-school students and staff were recruited from two high-schools in Montreal (Canada) and followed from January 25 th to June 10 th , 2021. Twenty-five percent of asymptomatic participants were tested weekly by RADT (nasal) and PCR (gargle). Class contacts of cases were tested. Symptomatic participants were tested by RADT (nasal) and PCR (nasal and gargle). The number of cases and outbreaks were compared to other high schools in the same area. Results Overall, 2,099 students and 286 school staff members consented to participate. The overall RADT’s specificity varied from 99.8 to 100%, with a lower sensitivity, varying from 28.6% in asymptomatic to 83.3% in symptomatic participants. Secondary cases were identified in 10 of 35 classes. Returning students to school after a 7-day quarantine, with a negative PCR on D6-7 after exposure, did not lead to subsequent outbreaks. Of cases for whom the source was known, 37 of 57 (72.5%) were secondary to household transmission, 13 (25%) to intra-school transmission and one to community contacts between students in the same school. Conclusion RADT did not perform well as a screening tool in asymptomatic individuals. Reinforcing policies for symptom screening when entering schools and testing symptomatic individuals with RADT on the spot may avoid subsequent significant exposures in class. Table of Contents Summary Rapid antigen tests were compared to standard PCR to diagnose SARS-CoV-2 infections in high-school students. They performed better in symptomatic individuals. What’s Known on This Subject Rapid antigen detection tests (RADT) are often used to diagnose respiratory pathogens at the point-of-care. Their performance characteristics vary, but they usually have high specificity and moderate sensitivity compared with PCR. What This Study Adds RADT sensitivity ranged from 28.6% in asymptomatic individuals to 83.3% in symptomatic individuals. Return to school after 7 days of quarantine was safe in exposed students. Secondary cases were identified in 28% of classes with an index case.
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 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".