Two‐phase Bayesian latent class analysis to assess diagnostic test performance in the absence of a gold standard: <scp>COVID</scp>‐19 serological assays as a proof of concept
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: In this proof-of-concept study, which included blood donor samples, we aimed to demonstrate how Bayesian latent class models (BLCMs) could be used to estimate SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence in the absence of a gold standard assay under a two-phase sampling design. MATERIALS AND METHODS: To this end, 6810 plasma samples from blood donors who resided in Québec (Canada) were collected from May to July 2020 and tested for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies using seven serological assays (five commercial and two non-commercial). RESULTS: SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence was estimated at 0.71% (95% credible interval [CrI] = 0.53%-0.92%). The cPass assay had the lowest sensitivity estimate (88.7%; 95% CrI = 80.6%-94.7%), while the Héma-Québec assay had the highest (98.7%; 95% CrI = 97.0%-99.6%). CONCLUSION: The estimated low seroprevalence (which indicates a relatively limited spread of SARS-CoV-2 in Quebec) might change rapidly-and this tool, developed using blood donors, could enable a rapid update of the prevalence estimate in the absence of a gold standard. Further, the present analysis illustrates how a two-stage BLCM sampling design, along with blood donor samples, can be used to estimate the performance of new diagnostic tests and inform public health decisions regarding a new or emerging disease for which a perfect reference standard does not exist.
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 | 0.083 | 0.092 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".