MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

SARS-CoV-2 and the role of orofecal transmission: a systematic review

2021· review· en· W3047834940 on OpenAlexafffund
Carl Heneghan, Elizabeth Spencer, Jon Brassey, Annette Plüddemann, Igho Onakpoya, David H. Evans, John Conly, Tom Jefferson

Bibliographic record

VenueF1000Research · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSARS-CoV-2 detection and testing
Canadian institutionsAlberta HealthUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of Alberta
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaSanofi PasteurCenters for Disease Control and PreventionAlberta InnovatesUniversity of OxfordNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchAlberta Health ServicesLaura and John Arnold FoundationOxford Health NHS Foundation TrustNIHR School for Primary Care ResearchPfizerDalhousie UniversityWorld Health OrganizationSanofiUniversity of Calgary
KeywordsOpen peer reviewPlant biologySevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Transmission (telecommunications)Sars virus2019-20 coronavirus outbreakVirologyMedicineNeuroscienceBiologyPhysiologyMechanical transmissionPathologyComputer scienceDiseaseInfectious disease (medical specialty)Outbreak

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Modes of transmission of SARS-CoV-2 are of key public health importance. SARS-CoV-2 has been detected in the feces of some COVID-19 patients, suggesting the possibility that the virus could, in addition to droplet and fomite transmission, be transmitted via the orofecal route. METHODS: This review is part of an Open Evidence Review on Transmission Dynamics of COVID-19. We conduct ongoing searches using WHO COVID-19 Database, LitCovid, medRxiv, and Google Scholar; assess study quality based on five criteria and report important findings. Where necessary, authors are contacted for further details on the content of their articles. RESULTS: We include searches up until 20 December 2020. We included 110 relevant studies: 76 primary observational studies or reports, and 35 reviews (one cohort study also included a review) examining the potential role of orofecal transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Of the observational studies, 37 were done in China. A total of 48 studies (n=9,081 patients) reported single cases, case series or cohort data on individuals with COVID-19 diagnosis or their contacts and 46 (96%) detected binary RT-PCR with 535 out of 1358 samples positive for SARS-CoV-2 (average 39.4%). The results suggest a long duration of fecal shedding, often recorded after respiratory samples tested negative, and symptoms of gastrointestinal disease were reported in several studies. Twenty-nine studies reported finding SARS-CoV-2 RNA in wastewater, river water or toilet areas. Six studies attempted viral culture from COVID-19 patients' fecal samples: culture was successful in 3 of 6 studies, and one study demonstrated invasion of the virus into intestinal epithelial cells. CONCLUSIONS: Varied observational and mechanistic evidence suggests SARS-CoV-2 can infect and be shed from the gastrointestinal tract, including some data demonstrating viral culture in fecal samples. To fully assess these risks, quantitative data on infectious virus in these settings and infectious dose are needed.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.033
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.033
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.007
Bibliometrics0.0120.014
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.132
GPT teacher head0.442
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

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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations42
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueF1000ResearchSame topicSARS-CoV-2 detection and testingFrench-language works237,207