MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3184256344 · doi:10.47363/jvrr/2021(2)128

Recurrent SARS-CoV-2 Infection: Case Reports and Review of the Literature

2021· article· en· W3184256344 on OpenAlexaff
Brian Conway

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Virology Research & Reports · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 Research
Canadian institutionsVancouver Infectious Diseases Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransmission (telecommunications)MedicineViremiaSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)Infection controlImmunologyPediatricsIntensive care medicineCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)DiseaseInternal medicineVirusInfectious disease (medical specialty)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We describe a 37-year-old woman who became infected with SARS-CoV-2. Over time, 4 other members in her family unit became infected, with 3/5 developing 2-3 separate clinical syndromes over two months. It is possible that each person had a single prolonged infection, with the literature reporting RNA detection for as long as 83 days in some cases. Syndromes of relapsing/remitting infection have also been well described. Intermittent negative RNA readings may represent “false negative” results with intermittent levels of viremia that occasionally fall below the limit of detection of the assay. An alternative explanation may be multiple episodes of infection, clearance, and re-infection within the family unit. Preliminary reports in the literature suggest onward transmission after recurrent infection in 3 reported cases. An understanding of the prevalence of cases series such as ours and their pathophysiologic and immunologic significance will improve our knowledge about SARS-CoV-2 infection and strategies to control it.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0080.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.077
GPT teacher head0.445
Teacher spread0.368 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Virology Research & Reports→Same topicSARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 Research→French-language works237,207→