MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3134187310 · doi:10.1101/2021.03.02.21249552

Modeling transmission dynamics and effectiveness of worker screening programs for SARS-CoV-2 in pork processing plants

2021· preprint· en· W3134187310 on OpenAlexaff
Kimberly VanderWaal, Lora Black, Judy Hodge, Addisalem Bedada, Scott Dee

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2021
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 Research
Canadian institutionsManitoba Health
FundersUniversity of Minnesota
KeywordsTransmission (telecommunications)Basic reproduction numberBiosecurityEpidemiologyPopulationOutbreakMedicineAsymptomaticEnvironmental healthHerd immunityIncidence (geometry)DiseaseDemographyVirologyComputer scienceInternal medicineMathematicsPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Pork processing plants were apparent hotspots for SARS-CoV2 in the spring of 2020. As a result, the swine industry was confronted with a major occupational health, financial, and animal welfare crisis. The objective of this work was to describe the epidemiological situation within processing plants, develop mathematical models to simulate transmission in these plants, and test the effectiveness of routine PCR screening at minimizing SARS-CoV2 circulation. Cumulative incidence of clinical (PCR-confirmed) disease plateaued at ∼2.5% to 25% across the three plants studied here. For larger outbreaks, antibody prevalence was approximately 30% to 40%. Secondly, we developed a mathematical model that accounts for asymptomatic, pre-symptomatic, and background “community” transmission. By calibrating this model to observed epidemiological data, we estimated the initial reproduction number ( R ) of the virus. Across plants, R generally ranged between 2 and 4 during the initial phase, but subsequently declined to ∼1 after two to three weeks, most likely as a result of implementation/compliance with biosecurity measures in combination with population immunity. Using the calibrated model to simulate a range of possible scenarios, we show that the effectiveness of routine PCR-screening at minimizing disease spread was far more influenced by testing frequency than by delays in results, R , or background community transmission rates. Testing every three days generally averted about 25% to 40% of clinical cases across a range of assumptions, while testing every 14 days typically averted 7 to 13% of clinical cases. However, the absolute number of additional clinical cases expected and averted was influenced by whether there was residual immunity from a previous peak (i.e., routine testing is implemented after the workforce had experienced an initial outbreak). In contrast, when using PCR-screening to prevent outbreaks or in the early stages of an outbreak, even frequent testing may not prevent a large outbreak within the workforce. This research helps to identify protocols that minimize risk to occupational safety and health and support continuity of business for U.S. processing plants. While the model was calibrated to meat processing plants, the structure of the model and insights about testing are generalizable to other settings where large number of people work in close proximity.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.101

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.300 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations4
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxiv→Same topicSARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 Research→French-language works237,207→