Factors Associated With Surveillance Testing in Individuals With COVID-19 Symptoms During the Last Leg of the Pandemic: Multivariable Regression Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Rural underserved areas facing health disparities have unequal access to health resources. By the third and fourth waves of SARS-CoV-2 infections in the United States, COVID-19 testing had reduced, with more reliance on home testing, and those seeking testing were mostly symptomatic. Objective: This study identifies factors associated with COVID-19 testing among individuals who were symptomatic versus asymptomatic seen at a Rapid Acceleration of Diagnostics for Underserved Populations phase 2 (RADx-UP2) testing site in West Virginia. Methods: Demographic, clinical, and behavioral factors were collected via survey from tested individuals. Logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with the presence of individuals who were symptomatic seen at testing sites. Global tests for spatial autocorrelation were conducted to examine clustering in the proportion of symptomatic to total individuals tested by zip code. Bivariate maps were created to display geographic distributions between higher proportions of tested individuals who were symptomatic and social determinants of health. Results: Among predictors, the presence of a physical (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.85, 95% CI 1.3-2.65) or mental (aOR 1.53, 95% CI 0.96-2.48) comorbid condition, challenges related to a place to stay/live (aOR 307.13, 95% CI 1.46-10,6372), no community socioeconomic distress (aOR 0.99, 95% CI 0.98-1.00), no challenges in getting needed medicine (aOR 0.01, 95% CI 0.00-0.82) or transportation (aOR 0.23, 95% CI 0.05-0.64), an interaction between community socioeconomic distress and not getting needed medicine (aOR 1.06, 95% CI 1.00-1.13), and having no community socioeconomic distress while not facing challenges related to a place to stay/live (aOR 0.93, 95% CI 0.87-0.99) were statistically associated with an individual being symptomatic at the first test visit. Conclusions: This study addresses critical limitations to the current COVID-19 testing literature, which almost exclusively uses population-level disease screening data to inform public health responses.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".