Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35814295›Full record

ArticleCommunications medicine2022

Machine learning to support visual auditing of home-based lateral flow immunoassay self-test results for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies.

Nathan C K Wong, Sepehr Meshkinfamfard, Valérian Turbé, Matthew Whitaker, Maya Moshe, Alessia Bardanzellu, Tianhong Dai, Eduardo Pignatelli, Wendy Barclay, Ara Darzi and 7 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Communications medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed
3.4field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

25 citing papers in PubMed, 40 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. A Wearable In-Pad Diagnostic for the Detection of Disease Biomarkers in Menstruation Blood.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2025
    Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

17 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Nathan C K WongDepartment of Bioengineering, Imperial College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2155-9105
Sepehr MeshkinfamfardLondon Centre for Nanotechnology, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-8594-1314
Valérian TurbéLondon Centre for Nanotechnology, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4979-197X
Matthew WhitakerSchool of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1363-6537
Maya MosheDepartment of Infectious Disease, Imperial College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-3451-3579
Alessia BardanzelluDepartment of Bioengineering, Imperial College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1026-3181
Tianhong DaiDepartment of Bioengineering, Imperial College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8904-1551
Eduardo PignatelliDepartment of Bioengineering, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Wendy BarclayImperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3948-0895
Ara DarziImperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7815-7989
Paul ElliottSchool of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7511-5684
Helen WardSchool of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8238-5036
Reiko J TanakaDepartment of Bioengineering, Imperial College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0769-9382
Graham S CookeDepartment of Infectious Disease, Imperial College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-6475-5056
Rachel A McKendryLondon Centre for Nanotechnology, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2018-6829
Christina J AtchisonSchool of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8304-7389
Anil A BharathDepartment of Bioengineering, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Imperial College London · GBImperial College Healthcare NHS Trust · GBLondon Centre for Nanotechnology · GBNational Institute for Health Research · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_PC_17114Medical Research Council MR/L01341X/1Medical Research Council MR/S019669/1Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Lateral flow immunoassays (LFIAs) are being used worldwide for COVID-19 mass testing and antibody prevalence studies. Relatively simple to use and low cost, these tests can be self-administered at home, but rely on subjective interpretation of a test line by eye, risking false positives and false negatives. Here, we report on the development of ALFA (Automated Lateral Flow Analysis) to improve reported sensitivity and specificity. Methods: Our computational pipeline uses machine learning, computer vision techniques and signal processing algorithms to analyse images of the Fortress LFIA SARS-CoV-2 antibody self-test, and subsequently classify results as invalid, IgG negative and IgG positive. A large image library of 595,339 participant-submitted test photographs was created as part of the REACT-2 community SARS-CoV-2 antibody prevalence study in England, UK. Alongside ALFA, we developed an analysis toolkit which could also detect device blood leakage issues. Results: Automated analysis showed substantial agreement with human experts (Cohen's kappa 0.90-0.97) and performed consistently better than study participants, particularly for weak positive IgG results. Specificity (98.7-99.4%) and sensitivity (90.1-97.1%) were high compared with visual interpretation by human experts (ranges due to the varying prevalence of weak positive IgG tests in datasets). Conclusions: Given the potential for LFIAs to be used at scale in the COVID-19 response (for both antibody and antigen testing), even a small improvement in the accuracy of the algorithms could impact the lives of millions of people by reducing the risk of false-positive and false-negative result read-outs by members of the public. Our findings support the use of machine learning-enabled automated reading of at-home antibody lateral flow tests as a tool for improved accuracy for population-level community surveillance.

Indexed as

DatabasesPublic health

Identifiers

PMID35814295
PMCPMC9259560
OpenAlexW4283830524

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.