MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4225304351 · doi:10.1101/2022.04.30.22274189

Then and NOW: A Prospective Population-Level Validation of the Abbott ID NOW SARS-CoV-2 Device Implemented in Multiple Settings for Testing Asymptomatic and Symptomatic Individuals

2022· preprint· en· W4225304351 on OpenAlexafffundabout
William Stokes, Allison A. Venner, Emily Buss, Graham Tipples, Byron M. Berenger

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2022
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSARS-CoV-2 detection and testing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of Alberta
FundersPublic Health AgencyPublic Health Agency of CanadaAlberta Precision LaboratoriesAlberta Health Services
KeywordsAsymptomaticMedicineOutbreakConfidence intervalPopulationCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)Internal medicineVirologyEnvironmental healthDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT IMPORTANCE Since December, 2020, the ID NOW was implemented for use in 4 different populations across Alberta: in mobile units as part of community outbreak response, COVID-19 community collection sites, emergency shelters and addiction treatment facilities (ES), and hospitals. OBJECTIVE Diagnostic evaluation of the ID NOW in various real world settings among symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals DESIGN Depending on the implemented site, the ID NOW was tested on patients with symptoms suggestive of COVID-19, asymptomatic close contacts or asymptomatic individuals as part of outbreak point prevalence screening. From Jan – April, a select number of sites also switched from using oropharyngeal swabs to combined oropharyngeal + nasal (O+N) swabs. For every individual tested, two swabs were collected: one for ID NOW testing and the other for either reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) confirmation of negative ID NOW results or for variant testing of positive ID NOW results. RESULTS A total of 129,112 paired samples were analyzed (16,061 RT-PCR positive). 81,697 samples were from 42 COVID-19 community collection sites, 16,924 from 69 rural hospitals, 1,927 from 9 ES, 23,802 samples from 6 mobile units that responded to 356 community outbreaks, and 4,762 from 3 community collection sites and 1 ES using O+N swabs for ID NOW testing. ID NOW sensitivity was highest among symptomatic individuals presenting to community collection sites [92.5%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 92.0-93.0%, n=10,633 RT-PCR positive] and lowest for asymptomatic individuals associated with community outbreaks (73.9%, 95% CI 69.8-77.7%, n=494 RT-PCR positive). Specificity was greater than 99% in all populations tested, but positive predictive value (PPV) was lower among asymptomatic populations (82.4–91.3%) compared to symptomatic populations (96.0-96.9%). There was no statistically significant differences in sensitivity with respect to age, gender, NP vs OP swab for RT-PCR confirmation, variants of concern, or with combined oropharyngeal and nasal swabs using COVID-19 ID NOW testing. CONCLUSIONS Sensitivity of ID NOW SARS-CoV-2 testing is highest when used on symptomatic community populations not seeking medical care. Sensitivity and PPV drops by approximately 10% when tested on asymptomatic populations. Using combined oropharyngeal and nasal swabs did not improve ID NOW performance.

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)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.084
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.255 · 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.

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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxivSame topicSARS-CoV-2 detection and testingFrench-language works237,207