Low Risk of COVID-19 Infection in an Ambulatory Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Center in Argentina
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Objectives. Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, concerns have been raised regarding the risk of infection to both healthcare staff and patients during gastrointestinal endoscopy procedures. Given the importance of performing routine endoscopic procedures to an individual’s future health, we sought to estimate the risk of COVID-19 infection for healthcare staff and patients undergoing endoscopic studies at an ambulatory endoscopy center during the pandemic. Material and Methods. This is a prospective(and) analytical cohort study conducted in an ambulatory gastroenterology center located in the Autonomous City of Buenos Aires, Argentina. Patients undergoing different endoscopic procedures were evaluated for COVID-19 between April 14 and August 31, 2020. COVID-19 was also evaluated in all healthcare and associated staff during the same time period. The risk (cumulative incidence) of acquiring COVID-19 in all patients and staff was calculated. Results. Between April 14 and August 31, 2020, procedures were performed in 3,745 patients with a mean age of 51.12 years; 2,102 (56.18%) were male and 1,643 (43.82%) were female. Follow-up was completed in 3,492 patients, 18 of whom tested positive for COVID-19 standing for an incidence of 0.52% (95%CI 0.31 – 0.81%). Six (5.45%) out of 110 staff members were infected with COVID-19 (1 endoscopist, 4 endoscopy assistants and 1 administrative staff member). In this group, the incidence of positive tests for COVID-19 was 5.45% (95%CI: 2.03 – 11.50%). The increased rates of positive cases among our patients and healthcare professionals were respectively 7.9 and 23.6 times lower than in general population. Conclusion. During the study period, the proportion of COVID-19 infections in our ambulatory specialized in gastrointestinal endoscopy was low and much lower than that in the general population for both patients and healthcare professionals. Endoscopic procedures undertaken at this center were low risk, likely due to strict compliance with established pandemic protocols. Future studies should compare the risk of infection in the hospital setting.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".