SARS-CoV-2 Positivity in Early Infancy: A National Cohort From Saudi Arabia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Data on SARS-CoV-2 in infants ≤ 90 days are limited with conflicting reports regarding its presentation and outcomes. Methods: We conducted an ambispective cohort study using prospectively collected Health Electronic Surveillance Network Database by the Ministry of Health, Saudi Arabia. Infants of ≤ 90 days of age who had a positive RT-PCR test for SARS-CoV-2 virus were included. Patients were divided in Early neonatal (0-6 days), late neonatal (7-27 days), and post- neonatal (28-90 days) groups and were compared for clinical characteristics and outcomes by contacting parents and collecting information retrospectively. Results: Of 1,793 infants, 898 infants were included for analysis. Most infants in the early neonatal group had no features of infection (tested based on maternal positivity), whereas most infants in the late and post- neonatal groups were tested because of clinical features of infection. Fever and respiratory signs were the most common presenting feature in the late and post-neonatal groups. Hospitalization was higher in the early neonatal group (80%), compared to the two other groups. The overall mortality in the cohort was 1.6%. Conclusion: SARS-CoV-2 infection in infants ≤ 90 days might not be as rare as previously reported. The clinical presentation varies based on age at positive RT-PCR result.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".