MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4210868065 · doi:10.2196/36575

Diagnostic Accuracy of Rapid Antigen Tests in Asymptomatic Close Contacts of Individuals With Confirmed SARS-CoV-2 Infections in the Herat Province of Afghanistan in 2021: Cross-sectional Study

2022· article· en· W4210868065 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ahmad Amirnajad

Bibliographic record

VenueIproceedings · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAsymptomaticContact tracingCross-sectional studyMedicineAntigenPandemicCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)VirologyImmunologyInternal medicineDiseaseInfectious disease (medical specialty)Pathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Early detection and isolation are key strategies for containing the COVID-19 pandemic in resource-poor countries, including Afghanistan, where access to the vaccines is limited. These strategies could reduce burden on the health care system, which is already weak because of conflicts and war. The first COVID-19 case in Afghanistan was detected in the Herat province close to Iran. Currently, both rapid antigen tests and reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) have been used for the diagnosis of COVID-19 in the Herat province. Objective This study aimed to assess the accuracy of the rapid antigen test in asymptomatic close contacts of individuals with confirmed COVID-19 in the Herat province. Methods This was a cross-sectional study conducted by contact-tracing surveillance teams in the Herat province. The teams listed 200 asymptomatic close contacts of individuals with confirmed COVID-19, and 2 separate nasopharyngeal specimens were collected. The rapid antigen test (Biosensor) was used on the fourth and seventh day after contact, and the second specimen was sent to the reference lab for RT-PCR testing. Descriptive statistics were calculated. The sensitivity and specificity of the rapid antigen tests were compared with those of RT-PCR. Results The median age of the contacts was 35 years (range 11-90 years), and 138 (70%) were women. Of the 196 (98%) contacts for whom RT-PCR was used, 105 (53%) had confirmed results for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Only 30 (15%) cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection were confirmed by the rapid antigen test, which indicates a sensitivity of 20.1%. However, the specificity of the rapid antigen test was high (90%). Conclusions The sensitivity of the rapid antigen tests was relatively low to confirm COVID-19 in asymptomatic close contacts of individuals with confirmed COVID-19. Therefore, if resources allow, RT-PCR would be the best choice with its high sensitivity rate to diagnose COVID-19 in asymptomatic close contacts of individuals with confirmed COVID-19. Further study with a large sample size is needed.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.651

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.327 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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