Posted on 09/30/2021 1:18:50 PM PDT by nickcarraway
Two small human challenge studies explore the possibility in the era of COVID-19by , Staff Writer,
A non-invasive biometric sensor screening device accurately identified flu and the common cold prior to symptom onset, researchers found in two small human challenge studies.
In the first, which involved 31 participants inoculated with influenza, Empatica's E4 wristband detected the difference between infection and non-infection with up to 92% accuracy. The second involved 18 participants inoculated with human rhinovirus, and here the E4 wristband detected the difference between infection and non-infection with 88% accuracy, reported Jessilyn Dunn, PhD, of Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, and colleagues.
Moreover, the infection severity prediction model determined the difference between mild and moderate infection with 89-90% accuracy for both flu and rhinovirus, the authors wrote in JAMA Network Open.
Currently, there are no pre-symptomatic screening devices to prevent the spread of respiratory viral infections.
"The ability to identify individuals during this critical early phase, when many may be spreading the virus without knowing it, and when therapies (if available) and public health interventions are most likely to be efficacious, may have a wide-ranging effect," the authors wrote.
Biometric devices or "wearables" with digital biomarkers (like the E4) can assess heart rate, temperature, movement, and electrodermal skin activity, transforming the measurements into health indicators, they noted.
"This study is groundbreaking showing that it is feasible in experimentally infected individuals," Seema Lakdawala, PhD, of the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, who was not involved with the research, told MedPage Today. "This could pave the way for other detection systems including breathalyzers to detect infected individuals using unique biomarkers."
For the rhinovirus study, Dunn and colleagues collected data on 18 college students who were inoculated in September 2015. Participants were not isolated and underwent daily nasal lavage and wore the E4 device for 4 days prior to inoculation, as well as 5 days after.
In the influenza A H1N1 challenge study, 31 participants were inoculated with influenza from September 2017 to May 2018. These individuals isolated for at least 8 days after testing negative via nasal lavage PCR and wore the E4 device 1 day before inoculation as well as 11 days after.
From these data, they developed infection prediction models. Symptoms of influenza were defined as "observable" events (fever, stuffy or runny nose, sneezing, coughing, shortness of breath, etc.) or "unobservable" events (muscle aches, fatigue, headaches, sore throat).
The primary outcome assessed the E4's accuracy to screen for infection prior to symptom onset and its ability to predict infection severity.
In the flu cohort, participants had an average age of 35 (range 18-55), more than three-fourths were men, and about two-thirds were white. In the rhinovirus cohort, the average age was 22 (range 20-33), 61% were men, and almost 80% were white. Median symptom onset after inoculation was 48 hours and 36 hours, respectively.
For the flu cohort, the device had 90% sensitivity and 93% specificity, with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.85 (95% CI 0.70-1.00). For the rhinovirus cohort, the device showed 78% sensitivity and 100% specificity, with an AUC of 0.96 (95% CI 0.85-1.00).
Infection severity models showed the device could distinguish between mild and moderate infection at 24 hours prior to symptom onset with 88% sensitivity and 92% specificity for flu, and 75% sensitivity and 100% specificity for rhinovirus.
"Our results show that an accuracy plateau occurred in the 12- to 24-hour period after inoculation for 24 of 25 infection detection models (96.0%) and for 64 of 66 infection severity models (97.0%)," Dunn and coauthors explained. "This finding indicates that the most critical of the physiologic changes that occur in response to viral inoculation and that predict pending illness severity occurred within 12 to 24 hours after exposure."
The studies had several limitations, the researchers acknowledged: they only evaluated two respiratory viruses, the sample sizes were small and lacked diversity, and there were no control groups.
What would be the need for such a device?
The flu has been eradicated 100%.
There is no more flu.
Sure. Just use the CDC method. Are you breathing? You have COVID. Not breathing? Died from COVID.
This is E4 v1.
By E4 v4, it will be tied to the Internet of things. It could become the equivalent of the “vaccine passport”. Just think how cool this tech could become! It detects you are infected, with something. It automatically communicates this everywhere including turning your EV off so you cannot go anywhere. It could also be the same as an ankle bracelet geofencing you to your house. Maybe even communicating to your door locks to prevent you from even going outside. Gosh, there is nothing but sunshine and rainbows coming from our tech overlords.
No thanks.
I don’t want Big Brother tracking me and forcing me to quarantine simply because some computer tells them I may be sick.
This is so backward. I already have a chip intalled which will broadcast a warning.
Since I haven’t had a flu or cold for years, no customer here.
We are being played!
Let the hypochondriac sheep have at it.
As for me, it’s a big NOPE.
Beware when leftists ask themselves rhetorical questions.
YOU HAVE THE FLU , would you like some more
The flu in the past year has been lumped in with WuHan Flu. The COVID tests don’t distinguish therefore it is all WuFlu because that is more politically convenient. The tests lso don’t differentiate between strains of WuFlu so the extent of this “D” variant is questionable. All of it is preventable or, in the case of WuFlu, is mitigated by summer sunshine or non-summer vitamin D supplements liberally applied.
The flu in the past year has been lumped in with WuHan Flu. The COVID tests don’t distinguish therefore it is all WuFlu because that is more politically convenient. The tests lso don’t differentiate between strains of WuFlu so the extent of this “D” variant is questionable. All of it is preventable or, in the case of WuFlu, is mitigated by summer sunshine or non-summer vitamin D supplements liberally applied.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.