MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4249134935 · doi:10.31219/osf.io/4se6b

Microwave- and Heat-Based Decontamination for Facemask Personal Protective Equipment (PPE): Protocol for a Systematic Review

2020· review· en· W4249134935 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
James Dayre McNally, Katie O’Hearn, Shira Gertsman, Margaret Sampson, Lindsey Sikora, Anirudh Agarwal, Anne Tsampalieros, Richard Webster

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfection Control and Ventilation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPersonal protective equipmentHuman decontaminationEconomic shortageCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)ReuseProtocol (science)Medical emergencyMedicineRespiratorPandemicWaste managementEngineeringAlternative medicineMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During the COVID-19 pandemic, a shortage of PPE (namely surgical masks, N95 masks, and gowns) has been experienced by some hospitals and could be expected in others due to a rapidly increased need. One method of addressing the issue of PPE shortage is to decontaminate and re-use PPE. The CDC specifically recommends N95 filtering facepiece respirators (FFRs) for healthcare workers who are interacting with patients with COVID-19.There are anecdotal reports and published literature evaluating the potential of microwave and heat methods as an effective method for FFR decontamination for reuse, with mixed reports of impact on structural integrity. To date this literature has not been comprehensively synthesized and the purpose of this review is to systematically review the existing literature on microwave and heat-based decontamination of facemask PPE.This information will be used to contribute to PPE decontamination protocols at the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario and shared with other hospitals in Ontario, Canada, and internationally.

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)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.044
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: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.146

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.044
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0130.013
Bibliometrics0.0140.011
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.006
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0440.005

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.335 · 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
GenreProtocol

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

Citations5
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicInfection Control and VentilationFrench-language works237,207