Persistence and Sexual Transmission of Filoviruses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is an increasing frequency of reports regarding the persistence of the Ebola virus (EBOV) in Ebola virus disease (EVD) survivors. During the 2014⁻2016 West African EVD epidemic, sporadic transmission events resulted in the initiation of new chains of human-to-human transmission. Multiple reports strongly suggest that these re-emergences were linked to persistent EBOV infections and included sexual transmission from EVD survivors. Asymptomatic infection and long-term viral persistence in EVD survivors could result in incidental introductions of the Ebola virus in new geographic regions and raise important national and local public health concerns. Alarmingly, although the persistence of filoviruses and their potential for sexual transmission have been documented since the emergence of such viruses in 1967, there is limited knowledge regarding the events that result in filovirus transmission to, and persistence within, the male reproductive tract. Asymptomatic infection and long-term viral persistence in male EVD survivors could lead to incidental transfer of EBOV to new geographic regions, thereby generating widespread outbreaks that constitute a significant threat to national and global public health. Here, we review filovirus testicular persistence and discuss the current state of knowledge regarding the rates of persistence in male survivors, and mechanisms underlying reproductive tract localization and sexual transmission.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".