Determining SARS sub-clinical infection: A longitudinal seroepidemiological study in recovered SARS patients and controls after an outbreak in a general hospital
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A cohort of 67 confirmed SARS patients were prospectively followed for 16 months and were compared with a control population. Serum samples taken at various times were tested for IgG and IgM; dynamic serological changes in these antibodies were described. The positive responses of IgM and IgG antibodies in sera against SARS virus from the first week to the sixth week after onset of the illness in patients with SARS were measured. The ELISA test of IgG antibody was negative in 200 community controls. The positive rate in the SARS high-risk population was 0.61% tested by ELISA and 0.21% by IFA. The high-risk population in this study was defined as those who provided health care and other services to SARS patients during the outbreak. IgG antibody in convalescent serum of patients with SARS revealed an increasing trend, peaking at the 22nd week after onset of illness followed by a slow decline. IgM appeared earlier than IgG and can be better used for early detection. IgG remained at a high level for a much longer period, serving as a good indicator for follow-up and for assessing past exposure. Our results also suggest that sub-clinical infection, if it exists, is very rare.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".