Implementation of point-of-care molecular testing for respiratory viruses in congregate living settings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To implement and evaluate a point-of-care (POC) molecular testing platform for respiratory viruses in congregate living settings (CLS). DESIGN: Prospective quality improvement study. SETTING: Seven CLS, including three nursing homes and four independent-living facilities. PARTICIPANTS: Residents of CLS. METHODS: A POC platform for COVID-19, influenza A and B, and respiratory syncytial virus was implemented at participating CLS from December 1, 2022 to April 15, 2023. Residents with respiratory symptoms underwent paired testing, with respiratory specimens tested first with the POC platform and then delivered to an off-site laboratory for multiplex respiratory virus panel (MRVP) polymerase chain reaction (PCR) as per standard protocol. Turn-around time and diagnostic accuracy of the POC platform were compared against MRVP PCR. In an exploratory analysis, time to outbreak declaration among participating CLS was compared against a convenience sample of 19 CLS that did not use the POC platform. RESULTS: A total of 290 specimens that underwent paired testing were included. Turn-around time to result was significantly shorter with the POC platform compared to MRVP PCR, with median difference of 36.2 hours (interquartile range 21.8-46.4 hours). The POC platform had excellent diagnostic accuracy compared to MRVP PCR, with area under the curve statistic of .96. Time to outbreak declaration was shorter in CLS that used the POC platform compared to CLS that did not. CONCLUSION: Rapid POC testing platforms for respiratory viruses can be implemented in CLS, with high diagnostic accuracy, expedited turn-around times, and shorter time to outbreak declaration.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".