Estimating SARS-CoV-2 Seroprevalence in Canadian Blood Donors, April 2020 to March 2021: Improving Accuracy with Multiple Assays
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Here, we describe an approach to estimating seroprevalence in a low prevalence setting when multiple assays are available and yet no known gold standard exists. Because serological studies identify cases through both diagnostic testing and surveillance, and otherwise silent, unrecognized infections, serological data can be used to estimate the true infection fatality ratio of a disease. However, seroprevalence studies rely on assays with imperfect sensitivity and specificity. Seroreversion (loss of antibody response) also occurs over time, and with the advent of vaccination, distinction of antibody response resulting from vaccination as opposed to antibody response due to infection has posed an additional challenge. Our approach indicates that seroprevalence on Canadian blood donors by the end of March 2021was less than 10%. Our study supports the use of latent class analysis in upcoming public health crises, epidemics, and pandemics when a gold standard assay may not be available or identifiable.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".