ArticleBiochemia medica2022
Determining the SARS-CoV-2 serological immunoassay test performance indices based on the test results frequency distribution.
Article in Biochemia medica, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Diagnostic tests performance indices: an overview.Biochemia medica · 2025Review
- Data Distribution: Normal or Abnormal?Journal of Korean medical science · 2024Review
- No need for a gold-standard test: on the mining of diagnostic test performance indices merely based on the distribution of the test value.BMC medical research methodology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Introduction: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is known to induce robust antibody response in most of the affected individuals. The objective of the study was to determine if we can harvest the test sensitivity and specificity of a commercial serologic immunoassay merely based on the frequency distribution of the SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin (Ig) G concentrations measured in a population-based seroprevalence study. Materials and methods: The current study was conducted on a subset of a previously published dataset from the canton of Geneva. Data were taken from two non-consecutive weeks (774 samples from May 4-9, and 658 from June 1-6, 2020). Assuming that the frequency distribution of the measured SARS-CoV-2 IgG is binormal (an educated guess), using a non-linear regression, we decomposed the distribution into its two Gaussian components. Based on the obtained regression coefficients, we calculated the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection, the sensitivity and specificity, and the most appropriate cut-off value for the test. The obtained results were compared with those obtained from a validity study and a seroprevalence population-based study. Results: The model could predict more than 90% of the variance observed in the SARS-CoV-2 IgG distribution. The results derived from our model were in good agreement with the results obtained from the seroprevalence and validity studies. Altogether 138 of 1432 people had SARS-CoV-2 IgG ≥ 0.90, the cut-off value which maximized the Youden's index. This translates into a true prevalence of 7.0% (95% confidence interval 5.4% to 8.6%), which is in keeping with the estimated prevalence of 7.7% derived from our model. Our model can provide the true prevalence. Conclusions: Having an educated guess about the distribution of test results, the test performance indices can be derived with acceptable accuracy merely based on the test results frequency distribution without the need for conducting a validity study and comparing the test results against a gold-standard test.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.