RE: Putting the PASC Score to the Test: Clinical vs. Statistical Accuracy in Long COVID Diagnosis (Azola et al. JGIM) - Takeaways - MDSpire
Coming Soon: Introducing MDSpire News. Learn more
Conexiant’s news site is now MDSpire News. Learn more

Commentary on the PASC Score for Long COVID: Comparing Clinical and Statistical Diagnostic Accuracy (Azola et al., JGIM)

  • By

  • Jason D. Goldman

  • Jeffrey N. Martin

  • October 13, 2026

Share

  • 1

    The authors argue that Azola et al’s Long COVID clinic cohort likely overrepresented patients with multiple symptoms, creating spectrum bias in sensitivity estimates.

  • 2

    Requiring cases to have at least 1 neuropsychiatric symptom may have inflated sensitivity; 62% reported brain fog, worth 3 PASC score points.

  • 3

    The specificity cohort of fully recovered individuals and healthy controls did not represent patients with overlapping symptoms from other causes, potentially inflating specificity.

  • 4

    The authors note that case-control validation cannot establish positive or negative predictive values because it does not reflect disease prevalence in a population of interest.

  • 5

    The authors conclude that the PASC score was not validated because sensitivity, specificity, and predictive value estimates were biased.

Original Source(s)

Related Content