Evaluation of the diagnostic value of YiDiXie™-SS in breast ultrasound-positive patients ========================================================================================== * Yutong Wu * Huimei Zhou * Xutai Li * Chen Sun * Zhenjian Ge * Wenkang Chen * Yingqi Li * Shengjie Lin * Pengwu Zhang * Wuping Wang * Siwei Chen * Wei Li * Yanni Han * Hui Hu * Xiaoling Liu * Yongqing Lai ## Abstract **Background** Breast cancer is a serious threat to women’s health and breast cancer screening is of great importance. Ultrasound scan is widely used for screening or preliminary diagnosis of breast tumors, but its large number of false-positive results brings unnecessary mental pain, expensive examination costs, physical injury and other adverse consequences. There is an urgent need to find a convenient, cost-effective and noninvasive method to reduce the false-positive rate of breast ultrasound. The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic value of YiDiXie™-SS in breast ultrasound-positive patients. **Patients and methods** 134 subjects (malignant group, n=96; benign tumor group, n=38) were finally included in this study. The remaining serum samples were collected and tested by YiDiXie™ all-cancer detection kit. The sensitivity and specificity of YiDiXie™-SS were evaluated respectively. **Results** The sensitivity of YiDiXie ™ -SS in the malignant group was 97.9%(95% CI: 92.7% - 99.6%; 94/96) with a false negative rate of 2.1%(95% CI: 0.4% - 7.3%;2/96). The specificity of YiDiXie™-SS for the benign group was 63.2%(95% CI: 47.3% - 76.6%; 24/38), and the false positive rate was 36.8%(95% CI: 23.4% - 52.7%; 14/38) . This means that YiDiXie™-SS reduces the false positive rate by 63.2%(95% CI: 47.3% - 76.6%; 24/38) with essentially no increase in malignancy leakage. **Conclusion** YiDiXie ™ -SS significantly reduces the false-positive rate of breast ultrasound-positive patients without increasing the number of under-diagnosed malignant tumors. YiDiXie ™ -SS has vital diagnostic value in breast ultrasound-positive patients, and is expected to solve the problem of “high false-positive rate of breast ultrasound”. **Clinical trial number** ChiCTR2200066840. Key words * Breast cancer * Ultrasound Scan * False-positive * YiDiXie™-SS ## INTRODUCTION Breast cancer is the most common malignant tumor in women. The latest data show that in 2022, there will be 2,308,897 new cases of breast cancer globally, ranking 2nd in the global rate of new malignant tumors; there will be 665,684 new deaths, ranking 4th in the global mortality rate of malignant tumors1; and the incidence rate of breast cancer in 2022 has increased by 2% compared with that in 20201,2, and the prevalence continues to increase year by year. Currently, breast cancer is treated with a combination of surgical treatment, endocrine therapy, and targeted therapy depending on the tumor type3. In an epidemiological survey in the United States that included 11 common malignant tumors and the economic burden of disease, breast cancer topped the list with $39 billion in annual treatment expenditures4. The 5-year survival rate for stage I breast cancer patients in the United States from 2009-2015 was upwards of ninety percent, compared to only 27 percent for stage IV5. Breast cancer screening has been shown to improve cure rates6-8. Therefore, breast cancer screening can significantly improve the prognosis of breast cancer and reduce the financial burden of breast cancer patients. Therefore, breast cancer is a serious threat to women’s health and breast cancer screening is of great importance. Ultrasound is widely used in the screening or initial diagnosis of breast tumors, but ultrasound can produce a large number of false-positive results. According to the ultrasound BI-RADS grading system developed by the American College of Radiology (ACR), a diagnostic result in BI-RADS categories 4-5 is positive and requires histopathologic examination for final diagnosis9. Category 4 lesions have a wide range of malignancy risk spanning (2%-95%) and immediate pathologic biopsy is recommended9. Whereas the majority of biopsies of these 4a lesions are negative, the false-positive rate can be as high as 90%-98%9. False-positive breast ultrasound results imply misdiagnosis of benign disease as malignancy. As a result of a positive ultrasound, a puncture biopsy is usually taken to obtain a tissue specimen for pathologic diagnosis, from which the next step in the treatment plan is developed10. As a result, patients with false-positive breast ultrasound will have to bear the negative consequences of unnecessary puncture biopsy in terms of mental anguish, expensive examination costs, and physical injury. Therefore, there is an urgent need to find a convenient, cost-effective and non-invasive diagnostic method to reduce the false positive rate of breast ultrasound. Based on the detection of miRNAs in serum, Shenzhen KeRuiDa Health Technology Co., Ltd. has developed “YiDiXie ™ all-cancer test” (hereinafter referred to as the “YiDiXie™ test”)11. With only 200 milliliters of whole blood or 100 milliliters of serum, the test can detect multiple cancer types, enabling detection of cancer at home11. The “YiDiXie™ test” consists of three independent tests: YiDiXie ™-HS, YiDiXie™-SS and YiDiXie™-D11. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the diagnostic value of YiDiXie ™ -SS in breast ultrasound-positive patients. ## PATIENTS AND METHODS ### Study design This work is part of the sub-study “Evaluating the diagnostic value of the “YiDiXie ™ test” in multiple tumors” of the SZ-PILOT study (ChiCTR2200066840). SZ-PILOT is a prospective, observational, single-center study (ChiCTR2200066840). At the time of admission or physical examination, subjects who signed a pan-informed permission form for the donation of their remaining samples were considered included, and 0.5 milliliter of their remaining serum samples was taken for this investigation. The participants and investigators in this study were blinded. The laboratory professionals who administered the YiDiXie™ test and the technicians of KeRuiDa Co. who determined the test findings were unaware of the participants’ clinical information. The clinical specialists evaluating the individuals’ clinical information were ignorant of the results of the YiDiXie™ test. The Ethics Committee of Shenzhen Hospital of Peking University approved the study, which was carried out in accordance with the International Conference on Harmonization (ICH) Code of Practice for the Quality Management of Pharmaceutical Clinical Trials and the Declaration of Helsinki. ### Participants According to the ultrasound BI-RADS grading system developed by the American College of Radiology (ACR), a diagnostic result in BI-RADS categories 4-5 is positive9. Patients with breast ultrasound findings of BI-RADS category 4 or 5 were included in this study. The two groups were enrolled independently, and subjects who satisfied the inclusion criteria were added one after the other. This study initially included hospitalized patients with “suspected (solid or hematological) malignancy” who signed a pan-informed agreement to donate the remaining samples. Subjects having a postoperative pathologic diagnostic of “breast cancer” were placed in the prostate cancer group, whereas those with a postoperative pathologic diagnosis of benign disease were put in the benign group. Participants who had unclear pathologic results were excluded from the research. The study eliminated subjects who did not pass the serum sample quality test prior to the YiDiXie ™ test . For further information on enrollment and exclusion, please see the subject group’s earlier article11. ### Sample collection, processing The serum samples utilized in this investigation were obtained from serum leftover from a routine medical consultation, eliminating the need for extra blood sampling. Approximately 0.5 ml of serum was collected from the remaining serum of subjects in the Medical Laboratory and stored at -80° for subsequent use in the YiDiXie™ test. ### “YiDiXie™ test” The “YiDiXie™ Test” is done using the YiDiXie™ all-cancer detection kit. YiDiXie™ Test is an in vitro diagnostic kit developed and manufactured by Shenzhen KeRuiDa Health Technology Co. Ltd.. It determines whether a subject has cancer by looking for the expression levels of several dozen miRNA biomarkers in their serum. It maintains the specificity and increases the sensitivity of a wide range of malignancies by integrating these independent assays in a contemporaneous testing format and predefining suitable criteria for each miRNA biomarker to guarantee that each miRNA marker is highly specific. The YiDiXie™ test consists of three tests with very different characteristics: YiDiXie ™ -Highly Sensitive(YiDiXie™-HS), YiDiXie™-Super Sensitiv (YiDiXie™-SS)and YiDiXie™-Diagnosis(YiDiXie™-D). The development of YiDiXie ™ -HS took specificity and sensitivity into consideration. The number of miRNA testing was greatly enhanced with YiDiXie ™ -SS in order to obtain very high sensitivity for all clinical stages of all malignant tumor types. YiDiXie™-D dramatically increases the diagnostic threshold of a single miRNA test to achieve very high specificity (very low misdiagnosis rate) for all malignancy types. Perform the YiDiXie ™ test according to the instructions for the YiDiXie ™ all-cancer detection kit. Refer to our prior article for detailed procedures11. The raw results were analyzed by the laboratory technicians of KeRuiDa Co., and the results of the YiDiXie™ Test were determined to be “positive” or “negative”. ### Clinical data collection For this study, clinical, pathological, laboratory, and imaging data were retrieved from the subjects’ hospitalized medical records or physical examination reports. The clinical staging was evaluated by trained clinicians according to the AJCC staging manual (7th or 8th edition)12,13. ### Statistical analyses Descriptive statistics were reported for demographic and baseline characteristics. Number and percentage of subjects in each category were calculated for categorical variables, and minimum and maximum values were calculated for total number of subjects (n), mean, standard deviation (SD) or standard error (SE), median, first quartile (Q1), third quartile (Q3), and minimum and maximum values for continuous variables. Wilson (score) method was used to calculate 95% confidence intervals (CI) for multiple indicators. ## RESULTS ### Participant disposition 134 study participants were involved in this research (n = 96 cases for the malignant group and 38 cases for the benign group). The 134 participants’ clinical and demographic details are listed in Table 1. View this table: [Table 1.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/07/03/2024.07.02.24309738/T1) Table 1. Participants' demographic and clinical manifestation In terms of clinical and demographic traits, the two study subject groups were similar (Table 1). The mean (standard deviation) age was 47. 0(11. 65) years. ### Diagnostic Performance of YiDiXie™-SS As shown in Table 2, the sensitivity of YiDiXie™ -SS for the malignant group was 97.9%(95% CI: 92.7% - 99.6%; 94/96), with a false negative rate of 2.1%(95% CI: 0.4% - 7.3%;2/96). View this table: [Table 2.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/07/03/2024.07.02.24309738/T2) Table 2. The performance of YiDiXie(tm)-SS test The specificity of YiDiXie™-SS for the benign group was 63.2%(95% CI: 47.3% - 76.6%; 24/38), with a false positive rate of 36.8%(95% CI: 23.4% - 52.7%; 14/38)(Table 2). This means that YiDiXie™-SS reduces the false positive rate by 63.2%(95% CI: 47.3% - 76.6%; 24/38) with essentially no increase in malignancy leakage. ## DISCUSSION ### Reasons for choosing YiDiXie™-SS There are 3 very different tests in the 1-Drop™ Test: YiDiXie™-HS, YiDiXie™-SS, and YiDiXie™-D. YiDiXie ™ -HS has both high sensitivity and high specificity. YiDiXie™-SS has very high sensitivity for all types of malignant tumors, but slightly lower specificity. YiDiXie™-D has very high specificity for all types of malignant tumors, but relatively low sensitivity. For patients with positive breast ultrasound, both sensitivity and specificity of further diagnostic methods are important. On one hand, the sensitivity is critical. A lower sensitivity means a higher rate of false negatives. When the results of this diagnostic method are negative, the diagnosis usually ends for that patient. A higher false-negative rate means that more malignant tumors are missed, which will lead to a delay in their treatment, progression of the malignant tumor, and possibly even development of advanced stages. The patients will thus be obliged to bear the adverse consequences of poor prognosis, poor quality of life, and high cost of treatment. On the other hand, the specificity is very important. Lower specificity means a higher rate of false positives. When the diagnosis is positive, breast tumors are usually biopsied by puncture biopsy. A higher false positive rate means that more cases of benign tumors undergo puncture biopsy. It definitely leads to a significant increase in emotional distress, costly procedures or tests, physical injuries, and other negative consequences for the patient. Consequently, there is a trade-off between “fewer malignant tumors missed” and “fewer benign tumors misdiagnosed” when it comes to sensitivity and specificity. When non-breast cancer cases is mistakenly identified as malignant tumor, aspiration biopsy is typically performed instead of surgical resection. Therefore, false-positive breast ultrasound does not lead to serious consequences of organ loss. Therefore, for breast ultrasound-positive patients, “fewer missed diagnoses of malignant tumors” is considerably more essential than “fewer misdiagnoses of benign tumors.” Therefore, YiDiXie ™ -SS was chosen for reducing the false-positive rates of breast ultrasound rather than YiDiXie™-HS or YiDiXie™-D. Thus, balancing sensitivity and specificity is essentially a trade-off between “fewer malignant tumors missed” and “fewer benign tumors misdiagnosed”. In general, benign breast tumors that are misdiagnosed as malignant tumors usually undergo aspiration biopsy rather than radical mastectomy. Therefore, false-positive breast ultrasound does not lead to serious consequences of organ loss. Thus, for breast tumors, “fewer malignant tumors missed” is much more critical than “fewer benign tumors misdiagnosed”. Therefore, YiDiXie ™ -SS with extremely high sensitivity but slightly lower specificity was chosen for reducing the breast ultrasound false positive rate, rather than YiDiXie™-HS with high sensitivity and high specificity or YiDiXie™-D with extremely high specificity but lower sensitivity. ### Clinical Implications of YiDiXie™-SS in Breast ultrasound-positive patients As shown in Table 2, the sensitivity of YiDiXie™ -SS in the malignant group was 97.9%(95% CI: 92.7% - 99.6%; 94/96), and the false negative rate was 2.1%(95% CI: 0.4% - 7.3%;2/96). The specificity of YiDiXie ™ -SS for the benign tumor group was 63.2%(95% CI: 47.3% - 76.6%; 24/38), with a falsepositive rate of 36.8%(95% CI: 23.4% - 52.7%; 14/38) (Table 2). These results indicate that, while maintaining sensitivity close to 100%, YiDiXie™-SS reduces the false-positive rate of 63.2%(95% CI: 47.3% - 76.6%; 24/38) in breast ultrasound-positive patients. As mentioned above, missed diagnosis of breast cancer means delayed treatment, while false positive breast ultrasound means puncture biopsy. The above results imply that YiDiXie ™ -SS dramatically reduces the probability of false puncture biopsies of benign breast tumors with essentially no increase in malignant tumor underdiagnosis. In other words, YiDiXie ™ -SS drastically decreases the mental suffering, expensive examination or surgery costs, physical injuries, and Table 1. Participants’ domographic and clinical manifstation other adverse consequences for patients with false-positive breast ultrasound without basically increasing the delayed treatment of malignant tumors. Therefore, YiDiXie ™ -SS well fulfills the clinical demand and has important clinical significance and broad prospective application. ### YiDiXie™-SS is expected to solve the problem of “high false-positive rate of breast ultrasound” First, YiDiXie ™ -SS has superior diagnostic performance in breast ultrasound-positive patients. As mentioned earlier, with essentially no increase in malignant tumor underdiagnosis, YiDiXie ™ -SS substantially reduced the probability of erroneous puncture biopsies of benign breast tumors. Second, YiDiXie ™ -SS greatly eliminates nonessential workload for clinicians and contributes to the timely treatment of malignant tumor cases that would otherwise be delayed. When ultrasound is positive, patients usually undergo puncture biopsies. The availability of these biopsies is directly dependent on the number of clinicians. In many parts of the world, puncture biopsies are not performed until appointments have been made for months or even more than a year. It inevitably slows down the treatment of malignancy cases, and therefore it is not uncommon for breast ultrasound-positive patients awaiting treatment to develop malignancy progression or even distant metastases. As shown in Table 2, YiDiXie™-SS reduces the false-positive rate of 63.2%(95% CI: 47.3% - 76.6%; 24/38) in breast ultrasound-positive patients with essentially no increase in malignant tumor under-diagnosis. As a result, YiDiXie ™ -SS significantly relieves physician of unnecessary workload and facilitates the timely treatment of malignant tumors that would otherwise be delayed. Final, YiDiXie ™ -SS enables “just-in-time diagnosis” for breast ultrasound-positive patients. On one hand, the YiDiXie ™ test only requires microscopic amounts of blood, allowing patients to complete the diagnostic process non-invasively without leaving their homes. A single YiDiXie™ test needs only 20 microliters of serum, which is approximately the same amount as one drop of whole blood (one drop of whole blood is about 50 microliters, which yields 20-25 microliters of serum). Given the pre-test sample quality assessment and 2-3 repetitions, 0.2 mL of whole blood is enough to complete the YiDiXie™ test. The 0.2 mL of finger blood can be collected at home by the average patient using a finger blood collection needle, instead of requiring venous blood collection by medical personnel, allowing the patient to complete the diagnostic process non-invasively without having to leave their home. On the other hand, the diagnostic capacity of YiDiXie™-SS is almost limitless. Figure 1 shows the basic flow chart of YiDiXie™test, which shows that YiDiXie ™ -SS does not require both a doctor and medical equipment, and does not require medical personnel to collect blood. ![Figure 1.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2024/07/03/2024.07.02.24309738/F1.medium.gif) [Figure 1.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/07/03/2024.07.02.24309738/F1) Figure 1. Basic flowchart of the “YiDiXie™ test”. Thus, YiDiXie ™ -SS is absolutely independent of the number of clinicians and healthcare organizations, and has a nearly unlimited testing capacity. Therefore, YiDiXie ™ -SS enables “just-in-time” diagnosis of breast ultrasound-positive patients without the need for patients to wait anxiously for an appointment. In short, YiDiXie ™ -SS can play an important role in breast ultrasound-positive patients, and is expected to solve the problem of “high false-positive rate of breast ultrasound”. ### Limitations of the study Firstly, this study had a small number of cases and a clinical study with a larger sample size is needed for further evaluation in the future. Secondly, this was an inpatient malignant tumor case-benign tumor control study, and future cohort studies of breast ultrasound-positive patients are needed for further evaluation. ## CONCLUSION YiDiXie ™ -SS significantly reduces the false-positive rate of breast ultrasound-positive patients without increasing the number of under-diagnosed malignant tumors. YiDiXie ™ -SS has vital diagnostic value in breast ultrasound-positive patients, and is expected to solve the problem of “high false-positive rate of breast ultrasound”. ## Data Availability All data produced in the present study are contained in the manuscript. ## FUNDING This study was supported by Shenzhen High-level Hospital Construction Fund, Clinical Research Project of Peking University Shenzhen Hospital (LCYJ2020002, LCYJ2020015, LCYJ2020020, LCYJ2017001). * Received July 2, 2024. * Revision received July 2, 2024. * Accepted July 3, 2024. * © 2024, Posted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory This pre-print is available under a Creative Commons License (Attribution-NoDerivs 4.0 International), CC BY-ND 4.0, as described at [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/) ## REFERENCES 1. 1.sBray F, Laversanne M, Sung H, et al. Global cancer statistics 2022: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries [J]. CA Cancer J Clin, 2024. 2. 2.Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel R L, et al. Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries [J]. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 2021, 71(3): 209–49. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.3322/caac.21660&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F07%2F03%2F2024.07.02.24309738.atom) 3. 3.Waks A G, Winer E P. Breast Cancer Treatment: A Review [J]. JAMA, 2019, 321(3): 288–300. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1001/jama.2018.19323&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=30667505&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F07%2F03%2F2024.07.02.24309738.atom) 4. 4.Iadeluca L, Mardekian J, Chander P, et al. The burden of selected cancers in the US: health behaviors and health care resource utilization [J]. Cancer Management and Research, 2017, Volume 9: 721–30. 5. 5.Desantis C E, Ma J, Gaudet M M, et al. Breast cancer statistics, 2019 [J]. CA: a cancer journal for clinicians, 2019, 69(6): 438–51. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.3322/caac.21583&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F07%2F03%2F2024.07.02.24309738.atom) 6. 6.Lauby-Secretan B, Loomis D, Straif K. Breast-Cancer Screening — Viewpoint of the IARC Working Group [J]. New England Journal of Medicine, 2015, 373(15): 1478–9. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1056/NEJMc1508733&link_type=DOI) 7. 7.Marmot M G, Altman D G, Cameron D A, et al. The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: an independent review [J]. British Journal of Cancer, 2013, 108(11): 2205–40. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/bjc.2013.177&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=23744281&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F07%2F03%2F2024.07.02.24309738.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000320249500005&link_type=ISI) 8. 8.Olsen A H, Lynge E, Njor S H, et al. Breast cancer mortality in Norway after the introduction of mammography screening [J]. International Journal of Cancer, 2012, 132(1): 208–14. 9. 9.Baert A L. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) [J]. 2013. 10. 10.Gradishar W J, Anderson B O, Balassanian R, et al. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology: Breast Cancer. Version 2.2015 [J]. Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network: JNCCN, 2015, 13(4): 448–75. 11. 11. Chen Sun, Chong Lu, Yongjian Zhang, et al. Evaluation of the Multi-Cancer Early Detection (MCED) value of YiDiXie™-HS and YiDiXie™-SS [J]. medRxiv, 2024: doi: 10.1101/2024.03.11.24303683. [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NzoibWVkcnhpdiI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czoyMToiMjAyNC4wMy4xMS4yNDMwMzY4M3YyIjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjQvMDcvMDMvMjAyNC4wNy4wMi4yNDMwOTczOC5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 12. 12.Amin MB, Greene FL, Edge SB, Compton CC, Gershenwald JE, Brookland RK, Meyer L, Gress DM, Byrd DR and Winchester DP: The Eighth Edition AJCC Cancer Staging Manual: Continuing to build a bridge from a population-based to a more “personalized” approach to cancer staging. CA Cancer J Clin. 67: 93–99, 2017. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.3322/caac.21388&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=28094848&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F07%2F03%2F2024.07.02.24309738.atom) 13. 13.Edge SB and Compton CC: The American Joint Committee on Cancer: the 7th edition of the AJCC cancer staging manual and the future of TNM. Ann Surg Oncol. 17: 1471–4, 2010. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1245/s10434-010-0985-4&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=20180029&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F07%2F03%2F2024.07.02.24309738.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000277594300001&link_type=ISI)