Viral Cultures for Assessing Fomites Transmission of SARS-CoV-2: a Systematic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT This is a protocol for a systematic review to assess fomite transmission in SARS-CoV-2. Our research questions are as follows: Are fomite samples infectious? If so, what proportion are infectious, and what is the distance and duration of infectiousness in the air? What is the relationship between fomites, infectiousness and PCR cycle threshold (Ct)? Is there evidence of a chain of transmission that establishes an actual instance of fomite transmission of SARS-CoV-2? We will include studies of any design (and in any setting) that investigate fomite transmission (defined as any inanimate object that, when contaminated with or exposed to infectious agents, can transfer the agent to a new host). We will only include studies that performed viral culture which assessed cytopathic effect and verification techniques to ensure the cultured virus is SARS-CoV-2. We will assess the risk of bias using a checklist modified from the QUADAS-2 criteria.
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 | 0.147 | 0.255 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.018 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.027 | 0.004 |
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".