MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2942393463 · doi:10.1038/s41598-019-42386-5

Effectiveness of Dettol Antiseptic Liquid for Inactivation of Ebola Virus in Suspension

2019· article· en· W2942393463 on OpenAlexafffund
Todd Cutts, M. Khalid Ijaz, Raymond W. Nims, Joseph R. Rubino, Steven Theriault

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicViral Infections and Outbreaks Research
Canadian institutionsCanadian Science Centre for Human and Animal HealthUniversity of ManitobaPublic Health Agency of Canada
FundersPublic Health AgencyPublic Health Agency of Canada
KeywordsAntisepticEbola virusVirologyVirus inactivationMedicineSuspension (topology)VirusMicrobiologyBiologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The efficacy of Dettol Antiseptic Liquid (DAL) for inactivating Ebola virus (Makona C07 variant) (EBOV/Mak) within an organic load in suspension was evaluated per ASTM E1052-11. Three DAL lots were evaluated at dilutions of 1:10, 1:20, and 1:40, with contact times of 0.5, 1, 5, and 10 min. Approximately 7 log10 tissue culture infectious dose50 (TCID50) of EBOV/Mak was exposed to DAL at ambient temperature. Each dilution tested reduced the infectious EBOV/Mak titer by ~5 log10 within one min. Detectable virus was still present after an 0.5-min exposure, but each DAL dilution caused >4 log10 reduction within this time. Detection of virus below the limit of detection of the TCID50 assay was assessed by inoculating flasks of Vero E6 cells with undiluted neutralized sample and evaluating the cultures for cytopathic effect after 14 days incubation. No infectious virus was detected with this non-quantitative method in samples subjected to DAL for 5 or 10 min, regardless of the dilution evaluated. The rapid and substantial inactivation of EBOV/Mak by DAL suggests that use of this hygiene product could help prevent the spread of Ebola virus disease during outbreaks.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Bench or experimentallow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Bench or experimentallow
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.311 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations30
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicViral Infections and Outbreaks ResearchFrench-language works237,207