Defining the role of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 transmission – a living systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Reports suggest that asymptomatic individuals (those with no symptoms at all throughout the infection) with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) are infectious, but the extent of asymptomatic transmission requires further understanding. Purpose This living review aims to critically appraise available data about secondary attack rates from people with asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection. Data sources Medline, EMBASE, China Academic Journals full-text database (CNKI), and preprint servers were searched from 30 December 2019 to 3 July 2020 using relevant MESH terms. Study selection Studies that report on contact tracing of index cases with asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection, in either English or Chinese were included. Data extraction Two authors independently extracted data and assessed study quality and risk of bias. We calculated the secondary attack rate as the number of contacts with SARS-CoV-2, divided by the number of contacts tested. Data synthesis Of 928 studies identified, 19 were included. Secondary attack rates from asymptomatic index cases ranged from 0% to 2.8% (9 studies). Pre-symptomatic secondary attack rates ranged from 0.7% to 31.8% (10 studies). The highest secondary attack rates were found in contacts who lived in the same household as the index case. Other activities associated with transmission were group activities such as sharing meals or playing board games with the index case. Limitations We excluded some studies because the index case or number of contacts were unclear. Owing to the anticipated heterogeneity, we did not produce a summary estimate of the included studies. Conclusion Asymptomatic patients can transmit SARS-CoV-2 to others, but our findings indicate that such individuals are responsible for fewer secondary infections than people with symptoms in the same studies. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42020188168 Funding No funding was received
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".