MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2898977144 · doi:10.1186/s12879-018-3425-x

Fomite-mediated transmission as a sufficient pathway: a comparative analysis across three viral pathogens

2018· article· en· W2898977144 on OpenAlexaff
Alicia N.M. Kraay, Michael A. L. Hayashi, Nancy Hernández-Cerón, Ian H. Spicknall, Marisa C. Eisenberg, Rafael Meza, Joseph N. S. Eisenberg

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Infectious Diseases · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfection Control and Ventilation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNational Institute of General Medical SciencesNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsMedical microbiologyParasitologyTransmission (telecommunications)VirologyBiologyMicrobiologyZoologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Fomite mediated transmission can be an important pathway causing significant disease transmission in number of settings such as schools, daycare centers, and long-term care facilities. The importance of these pathways relative to other transmission pathways such as direct person-person or airborne will depend on the characteristics of the particular pathogen and the venue in which transmission occurs. Here we analyze fomite mediated transmission through a comparative analysis across multiple pathogens and venues. METHODS: We developed and analyzed a compartmental model that explicitly accounts for fomite transmission by including pathogen transfer between hands and surfaces. We consider two sub-types of fomite-mediated transmission: direct fomite (e.g., shedding onto fomites) and hand-fomite (e.g., shedding onto hands and then contacting fomites). We use this model to examine three pathogens with distinct environmental characteristics (influenza, rhinovirus, and norovirus) in four venue types. To parameterize the model for each pathogen we conducted a thorough literature search. RESULTS: Based on parameter estimates from the literature the reproductive number ([Formula: see text]) for the fomite route for rhinovirus and norovirus is greater than 1 in nearly all venues considered, suggesting that this route can sustain transmission. For influenza, on the other hand, [Formula: see text] for the fomite route is smaller suggesting many conditions in which the pathway may not sustain transmission. Additionally, the direct fomite route is more relevant than the hand-fomite route for influenza and rhinovirus, compared to norovirus. The relative importance of the hand-fomite vs. direct fomite route for norovirus is strongly dependent on the fraction of pathogens initially shed to hands. Sensitivity analysis stresses the need for accurate measurements of environmental inactivation rates, transfer efficiencies, and pathogen shedding. CONCLUSIONS: Fomite-mediated transmission is an important pathway for the three pathogens examined. The effectiveness of environmental interventions differs significantly both by pathogen and venue. While fomite-based interventions may be able to lower [Formula: see text] for fomites below 1 and interrupt transmission, rhinovirus and norovirus are so infectious ([Formula: see text]) that single environmental interventions are unlikely to interrupt fomite transmission for these pathogens.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.292 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations157
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Infectious DiseasesSame topicInfection Control and VentilationFrench-language works237,207