SARS-CoV2 Testing: The Limit of Detection Matters
Arnaout, R.; Lee, R.; Lee, G. R.; Callahan, C.; Yen, C. F.; Smith, K. P.; Arora, R.; Kirby, J. E.
Show abstract
Resolving the COVID-19 pandemic requires diagnostic testing to determine which individuals are infected and which are not. The current gold standard is to perform RT-PCR on nasopharyngeal samples. Best-in-class assays demonstrate a limit of detection (LoD) of ~100 copies of viral RNA per milliliter of transport media. However, LoDs of currently approved assays vary over 10,000-fold. Assays with higher LoDs will miss more infected patients, resulting in more false negatives. However, the false-negative rate for a given LoD remains unknown. Here we address this question using over 27,500 test results for patients from across our healthcare network tested using the Abbott RealTime SARS-CoV-2 EUA. These results suggest that each 10-fold increase in LoD is expected to increase the false negative rate by 13%, missing an additional one in eight infected patients. The highest LoDs on the market will miss a majority of infected patients, with false negative rates as high as 70%. These results suggest that choice of assay has meaningful clinical and epidemiological consequences. The limit of detection matters.
Matching journals
The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Multiplex Target-Redundant RT-LAMP for Robust Detection of SARS-CoV-2 Using Fluorescent Universal Displacement Probes 96%
- A Reagent and Virus Benchmarking Panel for a Uniform Analytical Performance Assessment of N Antigen–Based Diagnostic Tests for COVID-19 94%
- Targeted Hybridization Capture of SARS-CoV-2 and Metagenomics Enables Genetic Variant Discovery and Nasal Microbiome Insights 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Verification of the Abbott Alinity m Resp-4-Plex Assay for detection of SARS-CoV-2, influenza A/B, and respiratory syncytial virus 96%
- Comparative study of four SARS-CoV-2 Nucleic Acid Amplification Test (NAAT) platforms demonstrates that ID NOW performance is impaired substantially by patient and specimen type. 94%
- SARS-CoV-2 live virus culture and sample freeze-thaw stability 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Patient DNA cross-reactivity of the CDC SARS-CoV-2 extraction control leads to an inherent potential for false negative results 97%
- Association between neutralizing antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 and commercial serological assays 95%
- SARS-CoV-2 Whole Genome Amplification and Sequencing for Effective Population-Based Surveillance and Control of Viral Transmission 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Recommendations for sample pooling on the Cepheid GeneXpert(R) system using the Cepheid Xpert(R) Xpress SARS-CoV-2 assay 95%
- Diagnostic accuracy of two commercial SARS-CoV-2 Antigen-detecting rapid tests at the point of care in community-based testing centers 94%
- A RT-qPCR system using a degenerate probe for specific identification and differentiation of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron (B.1.1.529) Variants of Concern 94%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.