ArticleScientific reports2025
Performance assessment of disposable carbon-based immunosensors for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 infections.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We designed, developed, and clinically tested two rapid antigen-based immunosensors for SARS-CoV-2 detection, enabling diagnosis and viral load quantification for under USD $2. In a first clinical study, a screen-printed disposable carbon-based (SPC) sensor was assessed on prospectively recruited adult participants classified into three study groups: healthy donors (n = 46); SARS-CoV-2-infected symptomatic patients (n = 58); and co-habitants of patients without prior testing (n = 38). Nasopharyngeal aspirates (NA), oropharyngeal swabs (OS), and saliva (SA) samples were obtained from all participants. Performance was measured in terms of clinical sensitivity and specificity against a reference diagnostic RT-qPCR kit and analytical sensitivity (limit of detection, LoD) and specificity using recombinant material in lab tests. A second study was performed using the same sensor design, albeit with laser-induced graphene (LIG) electrodes, using nasopharyngeal swabs (NS) on 224 patient samples obtained at different stages of the pandemic, of which 110 tested negative and 114 positive via RT-qPCR. We find OS was the most informative sample, when compared to NA and SA. The SPC-based sensors had a 93.8% sensitivity and 61.5% specificity with OS samples, while the LIG-based sensors with NS had a lower sensitivity of 68.93%, albeit a significantly higher specificity of 86.17%. We believe specificity values for the SPC sensors were driven by positive results from co-habitants and healthy donors and were affected by the low sensitivity (75.5%) and high LoD (> 20,000 viral copies/mL) of the reference RT-qPCR kit used, and the lower sensitivity of the LIG-based was due to a reduced set of effective antigen-binding sites caused by the non-covalent LIG-mAb ligands used. The immunosensor's LoD to spike protein in phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) for both types of sensors was near 1 fg/mL and showed no cross-reactivity to recombinant structural proteins of Epstein-Barr and Influenza. Performance metrics and time-to-result (5 < 12 min) provide proof-of-principle of the immunosensor's applicability as a low-cost, rapid technology for determining SARS-CoV-2 infections. Changing the working electrode material to LIG, instead of SPC, improved specificity even in the presence of pathogen variants. Discordant results between our two immunosensor versions and RT-qPCR tests are attributed not only to limited antibody effectiveness in the former but also to the quality of RT-qPCR probes used at the height of the pandemic.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.