Remote early detection of SARS-CoV-2 infections using a wearable-based algorithm: Results from the COVID-RED study, a prospective randomised single-blinded crossover trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Rapid and early detection of SARS-CoV-2 infections, especially during the pre- or asymptomatic phase, could aid in reducing virus spread. Physiological parameters measured by wearable devices can be efficiently analysed to provide early detection of infections. The COVID-19 Remote Early Detection (COVID-RED) trial investigated the use of a wearable device (Ava bracelet) for improved early detection of SARS-CoV-2 infections in real-time. TRIAL DESIGN: Prospective, single-blinded, two-period, two-sequence, randomised controlled crossover trial. METHODS: Subjects wore a medical device and synced it with a mobile application in which they also reported symptoms. Subjects in the experimental condition received real-time infection indications based on an algorithm using both wearable device and self-reported symptom data, while subjects in the control arm received indications based on daily symptom-reporting only. Subjects were asked to get tested for SARS-CoV-2 when receiving an app-generated alert, and additionally underwent periodic SARS-CoV-2 serology testing. The overall and early detection performance of both algorithms was evaluated and compared using metrics such as sensitivity and specificity. RESULTS: A total of 17,825 subjects were randomised within the study. Subjects in the experimental condition received an alert significantly earlier than those in the control condition (median of 0 versus 7 days before a positive SARS-CoV-2 test). The experimental algorithm achieved high sensitivity (93.8-99.2%) but low specificity (0.8-4.2%) when detecting infections during a specified period, while the control algorithm achieved more moderate sensitivity (43.3-46.4%) and specificity (66.4-65.0%). When detecting infection on a given day, the experimental algorithm also achieved higher sensitivity compared to the control algorithm (45-52% versus 28-33%), but much lower specificity (38-50% versus 93-97%). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings highlight the potential role of wearable devices in early detection of SARS-CoV-2. The experimental algorithm overestimated infections, but future iterations could finetune the algorithm to improve specificity and enable it to differentiate between respiratory illnesses. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Register number NL9320.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".