Prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection among obstetric patients in Ottawa, Canada: a descriptive study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is limited information on the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in obstetric settings in Canada, beyond the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic (February to June 2020). We sought to describe the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in pregnant people admitted to triage units at a tertiary care hospital in Ottawa, Canada. METHODS: We conducted a descriptive study of pregnant people admitted to obstetric triage assessment units at The Ottawa Hospital between Oct. 19 and Nov. 27, 2020 (second local wave of the COVID-19 pandemic). Participants underwent SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction (PCR) (via naso- or oropharyngeal swabs) and serology testing upon admission. We excluded individuals younger than 18 years, those who did not speak English or French, those who enrolled in conflicting studies, those admitted for pregnancy termination and those triaged between 11:31 pm and 7:29 am. Swab and serology samples were analyzed using digital droplet PCR and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays, respectively. We defined SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity as a positive result for immunoglobulin (Ig) G, either alone or in combination with IgM or IgA. RESULTS: Of the 632 eligible patients, 363 (57.4%) consented to participation and 362 collectively provided 284 swab and 352 blood samples eligible for analysis. Common reasons for declining participation included feeling overwhelmed or anxious, being worried about repercussions of testing, pain or discomfort with testing or disinterest in research. Participants were mostly multiparous (53.9%) and in their third trimester upon admission (88.4%). In all, 18 (4.9%) participants had evidence of SARS-CoV-2 exposure; 2 (0.7%) of 284 were positive for SARS-CoV-2 by PCR and 16 (4.5%) of 352 were positive for IgG antibodies to SARS-CoV-2. INTERPRETATION: During the second local wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, the prevalence of active SARS-CoV-2 infection among obstetric patients in Ottawa was 0.7% and seroprevalence was 4.5%. Our low participation rate highlights the need for improvements in patient education and public health messaging on the benefits of SARS-CoV-2 testing programs.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".