Breath collection protocol for SARS-CoV-2 testing in an ambulatory setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background. The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic changed the way the society functioned. The race to develop a rapid, non-invasive, widely available test resulted in multiple studies examining the potential of breath to be that ‘game changing test’. Breath sampling is a non-invasive point of care test, but SAR-CoV-2 has introduced a level of danger into collection and analysis that requires a change in workflow to keep staff and participants safe. We developed a SARS-CoV 2 breath test work flow for collection and processing of breath samples in an ambulatory care setting and prospectively evaluated the protocol. Protocol development included testing the effect of respiratory filters on the integrity and reproducibility of breath samples. Methods. Prospective, observational study conducted at community COVID-19 testing sites, collecting breath samples from patients presenting for RT-PCR testing. Breath was collected via Tedlar®, and/or BioVOC-2™ as well as an environmental sample for all participants. Samples were transferred to Tenex tubes, dry purged and analyzed using a Centri automated sample introduction machine, GC, and a Bench-ToF-HD. Results. We successfully collected and processed 528 breath samples from 393 participants at community-based ambulatory COVID-19 test sites. The majority of samples were collected before vaccines were available and throughout the emergence of the Delta Variant. No staff member was infected. Conclusion. We demonstrated a safe workflow for the collection, handling, transport, storage, and analysis of breath samples during the pandemic collecting highly infectious SARS-CoV-2 positive breath samples. This was done without filters as they added complexity to the breath matrix, jeopardizing the sample integrity.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.024 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.009 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".