Back

Comparison and analysis of various complementary diagnosis methods for the current situation and problems of COVID-19 diagnosis

Huh, H. J.; Kim, D.-M.; Chae, S. L.

2021-01-15 infectious diseases
10.1101/2021.01.14.21249620 medRxiv
Show abstract

We evaluated and compared the diagnostic performance of fluorescence immunoassay (FIA) and two types of serological diagnostic tests: enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and immunochromatographic assay (ICA) for detection of SARS-CoV-2 antigen and antibody to diagnose COVID-19 infections. This study is aimed to analyze and compare the current status and problems of COVID-19 diagnosis and various alternative diagnostic methods that are viable. The enrolled subjects in our study population were tested with real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). ELISA and immunochromatographic diagnostic kit were used to diagnose 362 positive and 3010 negative SARS-CoV-2 specimens, and antigen fluorescence immunoassay kit was used on 62 positive and 70 negative SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR confirmed samples for diagnosis. As a result, categorizing by the patient symptom onset days, PCL COVID19 Total Ab EIA (ELISA) showed the sensitivity of 93.4% from 15 to 21 days, 94.2% from over 22 days, and the specificity of 99.97%. PCL COVID19 IgG/IgM Rapid Gold (ICA) had a sensitivity of 86.9%, 97.4%, and the specificity of 98.14% respectively. PCL COVID19 Ag Rapid FIA sensitivity was 93.8% from 0 to 7 days, 71.4% from 8 to 12 days and specificity was 98.57%. In conclusion, COVID-19 Ab ELISA and ICA, and COVID-19 Ag FIA are all complementary and applicable diagnostic methods to resolve the current problems of COVID-19 diagnosis.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"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.