Household transmission of SARS, 2003
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In the 2003 outbreak in Toronto (in Ontario, Canada) of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), about 20% of cases resulted from household transmission. The purpose of our study was to determine characteristics associated with the transmission of SARS within households. METHODS: A retrospective cohort of SARS-affected households was studied to determine risk factors for household transmission. Questionnaires addressed characteristics of the index case, the household and behaviours among household members. Potential risk factors for secondary transmission of infection were assessed in regression models appropriate to the outcome (secondary cases) and nonindependence of household members. RESULTS: The 74 households that participated included 18 secondary cases and 158 uninfected household members in addition to the 74 index cases. The household secondary attack rate was 10.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] 6.7%-23.5%). There was a linear association between the time the index patient spent at home after symptom onset and the secondary attack rate. Infected health care workers who were index cases had lower rates of household transmission. INTERPRETATION: SARS transmission in households is complex and increases with the length of time an ill person spends at home. Risk of transmission was lower when the index case was a health care worker. Rapid case identification is the public health measure most useful in minimizing exposure in the home.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".