MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3132679819 · doi:10.7326/l20-1283

Prevalence of Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 Infection

2021· letter· en· W3132679819 on OpenAlexaffabout
Müge Çevik, Isaac I. Bogoch, Gail Carson, Éric D’Ortenzio, Krutika Kuppalli

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Internal Medicine · 2021
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCOVID-19 Clinical Research Studies
Canadian institutionsToronto General HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAsymptomaticPandemicFamily medicineSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)PediatricsGerontologyInternal medicineDiseaseInfectious disease (medical specialty)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

LettersFebruary 2021Prevalence of Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 InfectionFREEMuge Cevik, MD, Isaac I. Bogoch, MD, Gail Carson, MD, Eric D’Ortenzio, MD, Krutika Kuppalli, MDMuge Cevik, MDSchool of Medicine, University of St. Andrews, St. Andrews, United Kingdom, Isaac I. Bogoch, MDToronto General Hospital and University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, Gail Carson, MDISARIC Global Support Centre, Centre for Tropical Medicine and Global Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom, Eric D’Ortenzio, MDINSERM (Institut national de la santé et de la recherche médicale), Paris, France, Krutika Kuppalli, MDMedical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South CarolinaAuthor, Article, and Disclosure Informationhttps://doi.org/10.7326/L20-1283 SectionsAboutVisual AbstractPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissions ShareFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail TO THE EDITOR:We read Oran and Topol's narrative review with interest (1). There is a clear need to better understand the contribution of persons with asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection (that is, those with no symptoms throughout their infection) in driving the current pandemic. However, we believe that there are caveats that are pertinent when interpreting the findings of this review, including the lack of a clear definition of “asymptomatic infection” and selective inclusion of cross-sectional studies.First, a narrative review containing a dearth of poor-quality evidence resulting in an overestimate of asymptomatic infections is problematic and may misinform policy response. Of the 16 studies included in this review, 4 defined symptoms of COVID-19 as fever and respiratory symptoms, 3 did not clearly define symptoms, and 6 were media articles that provided no information about symptoms. Respiratory symptoms or fever do not cover the spectrum of COVID-19 presentations, and many persons with nonspecific or mild symptoms are misclassified as being asymptomatic.Second, cross-sectional studies cannot determine who will remain asymptomatic throughout their infection (2). For example, a study of 359 COVID-19 cases in Guangzhou, China, found that 71 persons (86%) later developed symptoms (3). Nine of the 16 studies that Oran and Topol include are cross-sectional in design, but Oran and Topol describe them as cohorts. As such, whether some patients might have developed symptoms later is unclear. Only 1 study included other symptoms (such as malaise, rhinorrhea, and those involving the throat) and followed patients, with 89% developing symptoms later (4).Third, none of the studies cited included contact tracing; therefore, we cannot comment on asymptomatic transmission based on included studies. In contrast to Oran and Topol's conclusions, recent studies assessing longitudinal characteristics of viral load and transmission have found that truly asymptomatic patients have significantly lower viral loads than those who develop symptoms and transmit infection to fewer secondary cases (5).Finally, a systematic review addressed the same question using a robust methodology, excluded several of the studies that Oran and Topol included, and concluded that 15% to 20% of persons infected with SARS-CoV-2 remain asymptomatic (3). There remains an immediate need to fill knowledge gaps on COVID-19; however, efforts must coalesce to conduct systematic reviews using robust and transparent methods to avoid selective reporting and provide a balanced synthesis of evidence. Academic groups should join forces to coordinate efforts, share the burden to deliver timely and robust systematic reviews, avoid duplication, and improve quality.References1. Oran DP, Topol EJ. Prevalence of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection. A narrative review. Ann Intern Med. 2020;173:362-7. doi:10.7326/M20-3012 LinkGoogle Scholar2. Buitrago-Garcia DC, Egli-Gany D, Counotte MJ, et al. The role of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections: rapid living systematic review and meta-analysis. medRxiv. Preprint posted online 28 July 2020. doi:2020.04.25.20079103 Google Scholar3. Zhang W, Cheng W, Luo L, et al. Secondary transmission of coronavirus disease from presymptomatic persons, China. Emerg Infect Dis. 2020;26:1924-6. [PMID: 32453686] doi:10.3201/eid2608.201142 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar4. Arons MM, Hatfield KM, Reddy SC, et al; Public Health–Seattle and King County and CDC COVID-19 Investigation Team. Presymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections and transmission in a skilled nursing facility. N Engl J Med. 2020;382:2081-90. [PMID: 32329971] doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2008457 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar5. Chau NVV, Thanh Lam, Thanh Dung, et al; OUCRU COVID-19 Research Group. The natural history and transmission potential of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection. Clin Infect Dis. 2020. [PMID: 32497212] doi:10.1093/cid/ciaa711 Google Scholar Comments 0 Comments Sign In to Submit A Comment Author, Article, and Disclosure InformationAuthors: Muge Cevik, MD; Isaac I. Bogoch, MD; Gail Carson, MD; Eric D’Ortenzio, MD; Krutika Kuppalli, MDAffiliations: School of Medicine, University of St. Andrews, St. Andrews, United KingdomToronto General Hospital and University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, CanadaISARIC Global Support Centre, Centre for Tropical Medicine and Global Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, United KingdomINSERM (Institut national de la santé et de la recherche médicale), Paris, FranceMedical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South CarolinaAcknowledgment: The authors thank the CORRE Network (International COVID-19 Rapid Evidence Reviews Group).Disclosures: Disclosures can be viewed at www.acponline.org/authors/icmje/ConflictOfInterestForms.do?msNum=L20-1283. PreviousarticleNextarticle Advertisement FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsSee AlsoPrevalence of Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 Infection Daniel P. Oran and Eric J. Topol Prevalence of Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 Infection Andrew N. Cohen , Bruce Kessel Prevalence of Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 Infection Daniel P. Oran , Eric J. Topol Prevalence of Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 Infection Daniel T. Halperin Prevalence of Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 Infection N. Belgin Akilli , Ramazan Koylu Prevalence of Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 Infection Dongsheng Han , Jinming Li Prevalence of Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 Infection Charles Elder Metrics Cited byYouths’ perceptions and behaviors on COVID-19 testingCOVID19-ResCapsNet: A Novel Residual Capsule Network for COVID-19 Detection from Chest X-Ray Scans ImagesThe immunology of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection: what are the key questions?COVID-19 false dichotomies and a comprehensive review of the evidence regarding public health, COVID-19 symptomatology, SARS-CoV-2 transmission, mask wearing, and reinfection February 2021Volume 174, Issue 2 Page: 283-284 Keywords Cohort studies COVID-19 Disclosure Fevers Longitudinal studies Pharynx Systematic reviews Viral load Viral transmission and infection ePublished: 16 February 2021 Issue Published: February 2021 Copyright & PermissionsCopyright © 2021 by American College of Physicians. All Rights Reserved.PDF downloadLoading ...

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.158
GPT teacher head0.491
Teacher spread0.333 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations5
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of Internal MedicineSame topicCOVID-19 Clinical Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207