Table 2.
Comparison of visually interpreted results and results predicted by the AutoAdapt POC algorithm.
| Specimen used on test kit | Number of tests | Visual interpretation by non-expert (pos/neg) | Visual interpretation by expert (pos/neg) | Automated interpretation by AutoAdapt POC algorithm (pos/neg) | Concordant interpretation (Visual non-expert vs. AutoAdapt POC) | Discordant interpretation (Visual non-expert vs. AutoAdapt POC) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Contrived positive | 87 | 86/1 | 87/0 | 87/0 | 86 | 1 |
| High positive titer | 31 | 31/0 | 31/0 | 31/0 | 31 | 0 |
| Medium positive titer | 27 | 27/0 | 27/0 | 27/0 | 27 | 0 |
| Low positive titer | 29 | 28/1 | 29/0 | 29/0 | 28 | 1 |
| Contrived negative | 18 | 0/18 | 0/18 | 0/18 | 18 | 0 |
| Total | 105 | 86/19 | 87/18 | 87/18 | 104 | 1 |
Contrived samples were provided by ACON. Titers of high, medium, and low, correspond to virus titers of 25,000, 17,500, and <7500 TCID50/mL, respectively. Tests with both visual interpretations and digital reads were included in the analysis.