MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3011072023 · doi:10.1101/2020.03.15.20036533

Is a 14-day quarantine period optimal for effectively controlling coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)?

2020· preprint· en· W3011072023 on OpenAlex
Xue Jiang, Yawei Niu, Xiong Li, Li Lin, Wenxiang Cai, Yucan Chen, Bo Liao, Edwin Wang

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2020
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicCOVID-19 epidemiological studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuarantineIncubation periodCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)OutbreakMedicinePandemicCohortSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)DiseasePopulationTransmission (telecommunications)Isolation (microbiology)Viral sheddingPediatricsDemographyIncubationInternal medicineVirologyBiologyInfectious disease (medical specialty)Environmental healthVirusPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Background The outbreak of a new coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) disease (Covid-19) has become pandemic. To be more effectively controlling the disease, it is critical to set up an optimal quarantine period so that about 95% of the cases developing symptoms will be retained for isolation. At the moment, the WHO-established quarantine period is 14 days based on previous reports which had studied small sizes of hospitalized cases (10 and ∼100, respectively), however, over 80% of adult- and 95% of child-cases were not necessary to stay in hospitals, and therefore, had not been hospitalized. Therefore, we are questioning if the current-inferred median incubation time is representative for the whole Covid-19 population, and if the current quarantine period is optimal. Methods We compiled and analyzed the patient-level information of 2015 laboratory-confirmed Covid-19 cases including 99 children in 28 Chinese provinces. This cohort represents a wide-range spectrum of Covid-19 disease with both hospitalized and non-hospitalized cases. Results The full range of incubation periods of the Covid-19 cases ranged from 0 to 33 days among 2015 cases. There were 6 (0.13%) symptom-free cases including 4 females with a median age of 25.5 years and 2 males with a median age of 36 years. The median incubation period of both male and female adults was similar (7-day) but significantly shorter than that (9-day) of child cases (P=0.02). This cohort contained 4 transmission generations, and incubation periods of the cases between generations were not significantly different, suggesting that the virus has not been rapidly adapted to human beings. Interestingly, incubation periods of 233 cases (11.6%) were longer than the WHO-established quarantine period (14 days). Data modeling suggested that if adults take an extra 4-day or 7-day of isolation (i.e., a quarantine period of 18 or 21 days), 96.2% or 98.3%, respectively, of the people who are developing symptoms will be more effectively quarantined. Patients transmitted via lunch/dinner parties (i.e., gastrointestinal tract infection through oral transmission) had a significantly longer incubation period (9-day) than other adults transmitted via respiratory droplets or contaminated surfaces and objects (P<0.004). Conclusions The whole Covid-19 population including both hospitalized and non-hospitalized cases had a median incubation period of 7-day for adults, which is 1.8-day longer than the hospitalized cases reported previously. An extension of the adult quarantine period to 18 days or 21 days could be more effective in preventing virus-spreading and controlling the disease. The cases transmitted by lunch/dinner parties could be infected first in the gastrointestinal tract through oral transmission and then infected in the respiratory system so that they had a longer incubation period.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.075
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.658
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.075
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.313
GPT teacher head0.461
Teacher spread0.149 · 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