Table 3.
Comparative analysis of NanoSpot.ai, Spike-ELISA and Spike-CIA in clinical study.
| Spike ELISA (EUROIMMUN) | Spike CIA (Siemens) | Positive percent agreement (PPA) (%) | Negative percent agreement (NPA) (%) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ig pos, n = 35 | Ig neg, n = 13 | Ig pos, n = 32 | Ig neg, n = 16 | |||
| NanoSpot.ai | 35 | 12 | 100 | 92* | ||
| 32 | 12 | 100 | 75*,** | |||
| ELISA | 32 | 13 | 100 | 81** | ||
*One discrepant sample from a COVID19-positive patient (NANO_48) scored negative by Spike-ELISA and Spike-CIA, but was positive in the Nucleocapsid CIA (Abbot), NanoSpot.ai and S-Flow assay, suggesting that this sample represents a false negative in the Spike-ELISA and Spike-CIA.
**Three Spike-CIA-negative samples (NANO_23, _45, _57) were positive by Spike-ELISA, NanoSpot.ai and S-Flow assay, strongly suggesting false negative interpretation by CIA. One sample (NANO_48) tested negative in the Spike-CIA and Spike-ELISA, but positive by NanoSpot.ai, Nucleocapsid-CIA and S-Flow assay, suggesting false negative interpretation by Spike-CIA and Spike-ELISA.