MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4416170494 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2025-101336

COVID-19 antibody testing study: a nested substudy within Alberta’s Tomorrow Project (ATP) in Alberta, Canada

2025· article· en· W4416170494 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Sara Nejatinamini, Carmen Charlton, Stephanie Harman, Jamil N. Kanji, James D. Kellner, K. Lines, Kathleen Murdoch, Wendy Powell, Joseph Roberts, Will Rosner, Grace Shen-Tu, Graham Tipples, Jianyi Xu, Jennifer E. Vena

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLong-Term Effects of COVID-19
Canadian institutionsAlberta Children's HospitalAlberta Hospital EdmontonCanadian Blood ServicesUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of AlbertaAlberta Cancer Foundation
FundersHealth CanadaPartenariat Canadien Contre Le CancerCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchAlberta Cancer FoundationAlberta Health ServicesGovernment of AlbertaGovernment of CanadaPublic Health Agency of CanadaPublic Health AgencyAlberta Precision Laboratories
KeywordsPandemicCohortCohort studyCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)EpidemiologySerologySevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: The Alberta's Tomorrow Project (ATP) prospective cohort study was established in 2000 to investigate the causes of cancer and chronic disease. The cohort consists of almost 55 000 participants aged 35-69 years at the time of recruitment. From 2020 to 2022, ATP conducted a longitudinal substudy, the COVID-19 Antibody Testing (CAT) study, nested in this existing cohort, to understand the spread and impact of the SARS-CoV-2. In this cohort profile, we describe the CAT study design, recruitment and initial findings. PARTICIPANTS: In this prospective cohort substudy, ~4000 participants completed online surveys and provided blood samples at a study centre every 4 months for 1 year, across four cities in Alberta, Canada. The study was launched on a rolling basis beginning in September 2020 and data collection was completed in May 2022. The surveys collected information on health and lifestyle factors, COVID-19 (testing, symptoms, vaccination, public health recommendations) and impacts of the pandemic (including economic, health services, mental health). Blood samples were tested for antinucleocapsid and antispike protein SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. FINDINGS TO DATE: A total of 4102 participants consented and attended a study centre at baseline, and almost 90% of these completed the study. Overall, participants were aged 61±10 years, 60% female, 12% came from rural areas, 45% had at least a bachelor's degree, 24% reported a household income <$C75 000 and 39% were retired. About 15% of participants tested positive for antibodies induced by a SARS-CoV-2 infection over the course of the study, and about 18% of those who were infected reported long COVID (persistent symptoms for >4 weeks). By the end of the study, 96% of participants had received at least one COVID-19 vaccine dose. Through investigating other outcomes, it was observed that participants under 50 years of age were more likely to be assessed to have mild or moderate-to-severe anxiety and depressive symptoms compared with older participants. In addition, approximately 15% of participants reported a moderate to major impact on their ability to meet financial obligations. FUTURE PLANS: Serology results, together with health, lifestyle and sociodemographic data, and the continued follow-up of these participants as part of the broader ATP cohort study (planned through 2065), will provide opportunities to investigate the long-term sequelae of COVID-19 infection as well as the broader impacts of the pandemic on physical, mental and emotional health. Data are available to researchers on request through the ATP access process.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.155

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0050.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.430
Teacher spread0.369 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Open→Same topicLong-Term Effects of COVID-19→French-language works237,207→