Enhanced donor screening for faecal microbial transplantation during COVID-19
Bibliographic record
Abstract
high-risk procedure 5 due to aerosolisation and contact with infected bodily fluids (sputum, faecal matter and even bile 6 ), but linking transmission of SARS-CoV-2 to a previous endoscopic procedure is difficult, considering the large variation in both the incubation and viraemic periods.The authors did not account for the timing of endoscopy in relation to the moment of infection and/or admission.As shown by recent studies, viral load in patients with COVID-19 decreases substantially over a short period of time, 7 so even patients in critical condition might, in fact, have low viral loads when admitted to the endoscopy ward.Moreover, there is evidence that supports a rapid decline in infectivity after several days, 8 independent of viral load, 9 possibly justifying the lack of infectious isolates from the collected samples.In our own experience, there have been significant delays in access to endoscopy for patients with COVID-19 (data currently under review for publication), and this might, at least in part, account for the results of Boškoski et al.The findings of the study are reassuring, and we would like to point out that, even positive PCR findings would still not be enough to confirm infectivity since viral viability should be demonstrated by means of culture rather than PCR.Due to the significant impact of the SARS-CoV-2 on patient care, in-depth studies to establish clear correlations between viral load, infectivity and transmission risks are required to provide definitive answers in this matter.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".