MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410957861 · doi:10.1128/spectrum.03350-24

Comparison of NADAL COVID IgG/IgM rapid test and DiaSorin Liaison SARS-CoV-2 S1/S2 IgG assay across different blood sources and substrates

2025· article· en· W4410957861 on OpenAlexafffund
Harika Dasari, Claude Bourassa, Christian Renaud, Cécile Tremblay, Francine M. Ducharme

Bibliographic record

VenueMicrobiology Spectrum · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSARS-CoV-2 detection and testing
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalUniversité de MontréalCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)2019-20 coronavirus outbreakMedicineVirologyImmunologyInternal medicineOutbreak

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The NADAL COVID-19 IgG/IgM (NADAL) assay, approved for rapid testing on serum or plasma, had not been approved nor tested as a point-of-care test on capillary blood. The study aim was to evaluate the performance of NADAL compared to that of the DiaSorin Liaison SARS-CoV-2 S1/S2 IgG (DiaSorin) assay (gold standard). We conducted two cross-sectional studies in participants aged ≥2 years, in whom different blood substrates (whole blood vs serum) and sources (venous vs capillary) were sampled. The co-primary endpoints were agreement in IgG detection between NADAL on venous serum and whole capillary blood vs DiaSorin on venous serum. Among 128 participants, 23.2% had a positive DiaSorin IgG assay. The NADAL IgG on venous serum exhibited near-perfect agreement (κ = 0.91) and high accuracy (0.94, 95% CI: 0.87-1.00), with a sensitivity of 0.88 and perfect specificity compared to DiaSorin; NADAL IgG on whole capillary blood exhibited moderate agreement (κ = 0.77) and accuracy (0.84, 95% CI: 0.73-0.95), with a sensitivity of 0.68 and perfect specificity. As for secondary outcomes, when the two assays were compared within the same source (venous or capillary) but with different substrates (NADAL on whole blood vs DiaSorin on serum), strong agreement and high accuracy were observed. Within-test DiaSorin IgG assay on capillary vs venous serum showed near-perfect agreement and high accuracy. Within-test NADAL IgG assays on whole capillary blood vs capillary or venous serum demonstrated high accuracy. In conclusion, NADAL on venous serum exhibited near-perfect agreement and high accuracy with DiaSorin on venous serum but lower between-test performance on different blood substrates. IMPORTANCE: Accurate serological assays are essential for assessing population immunity levels and identifying vulnerable subgroups with lower immunity on which to focus vaccination efforts. Although rapid tests may offer the possibility of easy point-of-care testing on whole capillary blood for these purposes, they may not be as robust as other assays when used on different blood substrates or sources than those in which they were approved. The observed variability in test performance across different substrates and blood sources highlights the importance of pretesting assays under the specific conditions in which they would be used to ensure optimal interpretation of the immune status in the community.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.345
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.298 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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