MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3158574240 · doi:10.1101/2021.04.21.21255898

Practical Indicators for Risk of Airborne Transmission in Shared Indoor Environments and their Application to COVID-19 Outbreaks

2021· preprint· en· W3158574240 on OpenAlexaff
Zhe Peng, A.L. Pineda Rojas, Emilio Kropff, William P. Bahnfleth, Giorgio Buonanno, Stephanie J. Dancer, Jarek Kurnitski, Yuguo Li, Marcel Loomans, Linsey C. Marr, Lídia Morawska, William W. Nazaroff, Catherine J. Noakes, Xavier Querol, Chandra Sekhar, Raymond Tellier, Trisha Greenhalgh, Lydia Bourouiba, Atze Boerstra, Julian W. Tang, Shelly L. Miller, J. L. Jiménez

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2021
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfection Control and Ventilation
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersEconomic and Social Research CouncilNational Science Foundation
KeywordsOutbreakMeaslesTransmission (telecommunications)Airborne transmissionEnvironmental healthAttack rateCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Environmental scienceInfectious disease (medical specialty)MedicineVirologyDiseaseComputer scienceVaccinationTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Some infectious diseases, including COVID-19, can be transmitted via aerosols that are emitted by an infectious person and inhaled by susceptible individuals. Most airborne transmission occurs at close proximity and is effectively reduced by physical distancing, but as time indoors increases, infections occur in those sharing room air despite maintaining distancing. There have been calls for quantified models to estimate the absolute and relative contribution of these different factors to infection risk. We propose two indicators of infection risk for this situation, i.e., relative risk parameter (H r ) and risk parameter (H). They combine the key factors that control airborne disease transmission indoors: virus-containing aerosol generation rate, breathing flow rate, masking and its quality, ventilation and particulate air cleaning rates, number of occupants, and duration of exposure. COVID-19 outbreaks show a clear trend in relation to these factors that is consistent with airborne infection The observed trends of outbreak size (attack rate) vs. H (H r ) allow us to recommend values of these parameters to minimize COVID-19 indoor infection risk. Transmission in typical pre-pandemic indoor spaces is highly sensitive to mitigation efforts. Previous outbreaks of measles, flu, and tuberculosis were assessed along with recently reported COVID-19 outbreaks. Measles outbreaks occur at much lower risk parameter values than COVID-19, while tuberculosis outbreaks are observed at much higher risk parameter values. Since both diseases are accepted as airborne, the fact that COVID-19 is less contagious than measles does not rule out airborne transmission. It is important that future outbreak reports include information on the nature and type of masking, ventilation and particulate-air cleaning rates, number of occupants, and duration of exposure, to allow us to understand the circumstances conducive to airborne transmission of different diseases. Synopsis We propose two infection risk indicators for indoor spaces and apply them to COVID-19 outbreaks analysis and mitigation.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.480
Threshold uncertainty score0.605

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.296 · 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 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

Citations30
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxivSame topicInfection Control and VentilationFrench-language works237,207