MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3094293045 · doi:10.1093/cid/ciaa1632

Not All Viral Culture Approaches Are Equal

2020· letter· en· W3094293045 on OpenAlexaff
Nevio Cimolai

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Infectious Diseases · 2020
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSARS-CoV-2 detection and testing
Canadian institutionsChildren's & Women's Health Centre of British ColumbiaUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineVirology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

TO THE EDITOR—Rhee and colleagues contemplate the issue of infectivity post-onset of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and provide justification for isolation recommendations [1]. They propose that additional data are required, and some have since become available (Table 1). The data provide further evidence that viable virus can be obtained from clinical samples after a 10-day period albeit for a minority of patients. Nevertheless, the presence of such outliers for viral excretion can nevertheless complicate infection control both in the community and healthcare settings when the burden of infection is considerable. One reference in particular has documented viable virus for up to 21 days during the course of a mild infection [2]. Citations for Viable SARS-CoV-2 Isolation After 10 days of Disease Onset Abbreviations: CPE, cytopathic effect; RT-PCR, reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction. SARS-CoV-2, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 Citations for Viable SARS-CoV-2 Isolation After 10 days of Disease Onset Abbreviations: CPE, cytopathic effect; RT-PCR, reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction. SARS-CoV-2, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 The argument for how a viral culture may imply infectivity is live, but it is possible that this may in part be ultimately answered by susceptible animal inoculation studies [2]. Regardless, it must be acceded that not all approaches to viral culture from clinical samples are the same, and such variation in part may justly explain the variable frequency with which the virus may be cultured in late clinical samples. The site and manner of sample collection can vary; so too may the method of transport and storage. A simple freeze-thaw may reduce titers of virus [5]. The sample quantity applied, the cell line used, incubation circumstances and time, and potential passage all can affect viral recovery. Presence of the virus may be variably assessed by cytopathic effect, reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), or immunofluorescence. Viral debris from the sample may interfere with RT-PCR detection of viral RNA in cell culture [6]. There is no uniform culture methodology accepted worldwide for comparable studies. Although viral culture potential correlates with viral load, there can be little difference in culture-positive frequency among samples from patients that are either asymptomatic or symptomatic [8]. It is not surprising that there is a wide range for confidence intervals ascribed to the ability to culture virus in late samples. For example, one study found a range of 6–24% tail end 95% confidence interval for samples acquired at 11–15 days after onset of symptomatic disease [8]. Fundamentally, variation that is inherent in viral culture is no less an issue than the variation that is inherent in RT-PCR or serological diagnostic methods for SARS-CoV-2 infections among laboratories. In this light, it would be preferable for studies of presumed infectivity, which are abstracted on the basis of viable virus in tissue culture, to maximize the finding of virus by whatever methods that would require. The data thus far imply that infectivity can well extend past a 10-day period, and due consideration for this finding should be borne for medical decision making in deisolation and infection control. The bias in this decision making should lean toward an abundance of caution rather than the contrary. It is conceivable that adjustments in the quarantine may prevent more infection and save more lives than any vaccine in the interim. Disclosure. Funding was not sought for this publication. There is no third party support including that from the pharmaceutical industry. Potential conflicts of interest section. The author: No reported conflicts of interest. The author has submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Conflicts that the editors consider relevant to the content of the manuscript have been disclosed.

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)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.056
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.068
Threshold uncertainty score0.092

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.056
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.007
Scholarly communication0.0090.008
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0680.060
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.010

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 head0.227
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.159 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations7
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueClinical Infectious DiseasesSame topicSARS-CoV-2 detection and testingFrench-language works237,207