Cytomegalovirus as an occupational risk in daycare educators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection continues to be an important occupational risk in the daycare setting. A comprehensive update of scientific evidence is timely to inform and promote appropriate preventive measures. METHODS: A review of the literature was conducted to examine the evidence for an occupational risk of CMV infection in daycare educators. Sources included Medline, government documents and additional references from published bibliographies. The key words used for searches were 'child day care centres' or 'nurseries' and 'cytomegalovirus' or 'cytomegalovirus infection'. RESULTS: EIGHT CMV SEROPREVALENCE STUDIES ON DAYCARE EDUCATORS IN INDUSTRIALIZED COUNTRIES WERE FOUND: four in the United States, three in Canada and one in Italy. Risk factors for seropositivity were older age, nonwhite race, foreign birth, birth in a low- or middle-income country, diaper changing, having children at home, and a child to educator ratio greater than 6:1 in children 18 to 35 months of age. Risk factors for seroconversion were younger age and working with young children. These studies suggest that daycare centres may be a high-risk setting for CMV infection. DISCUSSION: Recommendations to prevent CMV infection in this setting include handwashing, selective serological screening, avoiding work with younger children if pregnant and, in some cases, preventive leave from work. Evaluation and expert opinion of the effectiveness of various preventive options for CMV acquisition are needed to ensure that recommendations are evidence-based.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".