Back

Accounting for assay performance when estimating the temporal dynamics in SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence in the U.S.

Garcia-Carreras, B.; Hitchings, M. D.; Johansson, M. A.; Biggerstaff, M.; Slayton, R. B.; Healy, J. M.; Lessler, J.; Quandelacy, T.; Salje, H.; Huang, A. T.; Cummings, D. A.

2022-09-18 epidemiology
10.1101/2022.09.13.22279702 medRxiv
Show abstract

Estimating the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection is central to understanding the state of the pandemic. Seroprevalence studies are often used to assess cumulative infections as they can identify asymptomatic infection. Since July 2020, commercial laboratories have conducted nationwide serosurveys for the U.S. CDC. They employed three assays, with different sensitivities and specificities, potentially introducing biases in seroprevalence estimates. Using mechanistic models, we show that accounting for assays explains some of the observed state-to-state variation in seroprevalence, and when integrating case and death surveillance data, we show that when using the Abbott assay, estimates of proportions infected can differ substantially from seroprevalence estimates. We also found that states with higher proportions infected (before or after vaccination) had lower vaccination coverages, a pattern corroborated using a separate dataset. Finally, to understand vaccination rates relative to the increase in cases, we estimated the proportions of the population that received a vaccine prior to infection.

Matching journals

The top 4 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.