MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200029017 · doi:10.1111/vox.13221

Current challenges of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 seroprevalence studies among blood donors: A scoping review

2021· review· en· W4200029017 on OpenAlexaff
Sahar Saeed, Samra Uzicanin, Antoine Lewin, Ryanne W. Lieshout‐Krikke, Helen M. Faddy, Christian Erikstrup, Carla Osiowy, Clive R. Seed, Whitney R. Steele, Katy Davison, Brian Custer, Sheila F. O’Brien

Bibliographic record

VenueVox Sanguinis · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 Research
Canadian institutionsPublic Health Agency of CanadaHéma-QuébecCanadian Blood Services
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSeroprevalenceMedicineSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Coronavirus2019-20 coronavirus outbreakRespiratory systemIntensive care medicineVirologyImmunologyInternal medicineAntibodySerologyOutbreakDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background and Objectives Blood donors are increasingly being recognized as an informative resource for surveillance. We aimed to review severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 seroprevalence studies conducted among blood donors to investigate methodological biases and provide guidance for future research. Materials and Methods We conducted a scoping review of peer‐reviewed and preprint publications between January 2020 and January 2021. Two reviewers used standardized forms to extract seroprevalence estimates and data on methodology pertaining to population sampling, periodicity, assay characteristics, and antibody kinetics. National data on cumulative incidence and social distancing policies were extracted from publicly available sources and summarized. Results Thirty‐three studies representing 1,323,307 blood donations from 20 countries worldwide were included (sample sizes ranged from 22 to 953,926 donations). The majority of the studies (79%) reported seroprevalence rates <10% (ranging from 0% to 76% [after adjusting for waning antibodies]). Overall, less than 1 in 5 studies reported standardized seroprevalence rates to reflect the demographics of the general population. Stratification by age and sex were most common (64% of studies), followed by region (48%). A total of 52% of studies reported seroprevalence at a single time point. Overall, 27 unique assay combinations were identified, 55% of studies used a single assay and only 39% adjusted seroprevalence rates for imperfect test characteristics. Among the nationally representative studies, case detection was most underrepresented in Kenya (1:1264). Conclusion By the end of 2020, seroprevalence rates were far from reaching herd immunity. In addition to differences in community transmission and diverse public health policies, study designs and methodology were likely contributing factors to seroprevalence heterogeneity.

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)0.062
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.225
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.062
Threshold uncertainty score0.329

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0620.225
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.006
Bibliometrics0.0330.025
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0080.008
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0050.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.272
GPT teacher head0.496
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations10
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVox SanguinisSame topicSARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 ResearchFrench-language works237,207