Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: From a public health perspective, the identification of individuals with mild respiratory symptoms due to SARS-CoV-2 infection is important to contain the spread of the disease. The objective of this study was to identify volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in exhaled breath common to infection with different variants of the SARS-CoV-2 virus to inform the development of a point-of-care breath test to detect infected individuals with mild symptoms. METHODS: A prospective, real-world, observational study was conducted on mildly symptomatic out-patients presenting to community test-sites for RT-qPCR SARS-CoV-2 testing when the Alpha, Beta, and Delta variants were driving the COVID-19 pandemic. VOCs in exhaled breath were compared between PCR-positive and negative individuals using TD-GC-ToF-MS. Candidate VOCs were tested in an independent set of samples collected during the Omicron phase of the pandemic. FINDINGS: Fifty breath samples from symptomatic RT-qPCR positive and 58 breath samples from test-negative, but symptomatic participants were compared. Of the 50 RT-qPCR-positive participants, 22 had breath sampling repeated 8-12 weeks later. PCA-X model yielded 12 distinct VOCs that discriminated SARS-CoV-2 active infection compared to recovery/convalescence period, with an area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (AUROC), of 0.862 (0.747-0.977), sensitivity, and specificity of 82% and 86%, respectively. PCA-X model from 50 RT-qPCR positive and 58 negative symptomatic participants, yielded 11 VOCs, with AUROC of 0.72 (0.604-0.803) and sensitivity of 72%, specificity 65.5%. The 11 VOCs were validated in a separate group of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron positive patients' vs healthy controls demonstrating an AUROC of 0.96 (95% CI 0.827-0.993) with sensitivity of 80% specificity of 90%. INTERPRETATION: Exhaled breath analysis is a promising non-invasive, point-of-care method to detect mild COVID-19 infection. FUNDING: Funding for this study was a competitive grant awarded from the Vancouver Coastal Research Institute as well as funding from the BC Cancer Foundation.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it