“Swab Team” in the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak containment among healthcare workers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: To analyze the virus spread among Sassari Hospital staff in the first Covid-19 wave and the impact of the Swab Team, a multidisciplinary task force entitled of nasopharyngeal swab collection and testing. METHODOLOGY: Nasopharyngeal swabs from HCWs between March 6 and May 28 2020 are evaluated. RESULTS: 4919 SARS-CoV-2 tests were performed on 3521 operators. Nurses and doctors are the categories at highest risk. After the Swab Team institution, the average number of swabs raised from 47/day to 86/day (p = 0.007). Positive samples decreased from 18.6% to 1.7% (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The Swab Team is effective in increasing the cases tested and in reducing the reporting time. Procedure standardization reduces the risk for all the subjects involved (no transmission among swab team members, nor during the sample collection).
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".