MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281784124 · doi:10.3389/fphy.2022.882314

Assessing the Risk of Spatial Spreading of Diseases in Hospitals

2022· article· en· W4281784124 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Dan Lu, Alberto Aleta, Yamir Moreno

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Physics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfection Control and Ventilation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAgencia Estatal de InvestigaciónChina Scholarship CouncilCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchGobierno de AragónBanco Santander
KeywordsTransmission (telecommunications)Health careInfection controlMedicineMedical emergencyComputer scienceIntensive care medicineTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In recent years, the transmission of healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) has led to substantial economic loss, extensive damage, and many preventable deaths. With the increasing availability of data, mathematical models of pathogen spreading in healthcare settings are becoming more detailed and realistic. Here, we make use of spatial and temporal information that has been obtained from healthcare workers (HCWs) in three hospitals in Canada and generate data-driven networks that allow us to realistically simulate the spreading of an airborne respiratory pathogen in such settings. By exploring in depth the dynamics of HAIs on the generated networks, we quantify the infection risk associated with both the spatial units of the hospitals and HCWs categorized by their occupations. Our findings show that the “inpatient care” and “public area” are the riskiest categories of units and “nurse” is the occupation at a greater risk of getting infected. Our results provide valuable insights that can prove important for measuring risks associated with HAIs and for strengthening prevention and control measures with the potential to reduce transmission of infections in hospital settings.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.058
Threshold uncertainty score0.144

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in PhysicsSame topicInfection Control and VentilationFrench-language works237,207