MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3121412276 · doi:10.1016/j.infpip.2021.100122

Hand hygiene: virucidal efficacy of a liquid hand wash product against Ebola virus

2021· article· en· W3121412276 on OpenAlexafffund
Todd Cutts, Raymond W. Nims, Steven Theriault, Elizabeth Bruning, Joseph R. Rubino, M. Khalid Ijaz

Bibliographic record

VenueInfection Prevention in Practice · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicViral Infections and Outbreaks Research
Canadian institutionsCanadian Science Centre for Human and Animal HealthUniversity of ManitobaPublic Health Agency of Canada
FundersReckitt Benckiser PharmaceuticalsPublic Health Agency of Canada
KeywordsEbola virusVirusMedicineLimitingVirologyTiterHygienePandemicCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Internal medicineInfectious disease (medical specialty)Disease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Hand washing is an important targeted hygiene intervention for limiting the spread of infectious agents, including the Ebola virus, which continues to re-emerge. We have assessed the virucidal efficacy of a commercially available liquid hand wash product (LHW) for inactivating Ebola virus. METHODS: The ASTM E1052-11 Standard was used to evaluate the efficacy of an LHW containing the microbicidal active salicylic acid for inactivating Ebola virus - Makona variant suspended in an organic load. Three concentrations (12.5%, 25%, 50%) of three lots of LHW prepared in 440 ppm hard water were evaluated at room temperature for 20, 30, and 60 s contact time. RESULTS: reduction in titer within 20 and 30 s, respectively). The efficacy of the 50% LHW solution could not be measured, due to inability to sufficiently neutralize the LHW at the end of exposure. CONCLUSION: These results suggest the potential utility of an appropriately formulated liquid hand wash agent during Ebola virus disease outbreaks for use within healthcare, community, and home settings. Such an LHW should also be effective against other enveloped viruses, such as the pandemic coronavirus SARS-CoV-2.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.125
Threshold uncertainty score0.719

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.344 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations9
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInfection Prevention in PracticeSame topicViral Infections and Outbreaks ResearchFrench-language works237,207