Wastewater-based epidemiology (WBE) for SARS-CoV-2 – A review focussing on the significance of the sewer network using a Dublin city catchment case study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Wastewater-based epidemiology (WBE) has been employed by many countries globally since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic in order to assess the benefits of this surveillance tool in the context of informing public health measures. WBE has been successfully employed to detect SARS-CoV-2 at wastewater treatment plants for community-wide surveillance, as well as in smaller catchments and institutions for targeted surveillance of COVID-19. In addition, WBE has been successfully used to detect new variants, identify areas of high infection levels, as well as to detect new infection outbreaks. However, due to to the large number of inherent uncertainties in the WBE process, including the inherent intricacies of the sewer network, decay of the virus en route to a monitoring point, levels of recovery from sampling and quantification methods, levels of faecal shedding among the infected population, as well as population normalisation methods, the usefulness of wastewater samples as a means of accurately quantifying SARS-CoV-2 infection levels among a population remains less clear. The current WBE programmes in place globally will help to identify new areas of research aimed at reducing the levels of uncertainty in the WBE process, thus improving WBE as a public health monitoring tool for future pandemics. In the meantime, such programmes can provide valuable comparisons to clinical testing data and other public health metrics, as well being an effective early warning tool for new variants and new infection outbreaks. This review includes a case study of sampled wastewater from the sewer network in Dublin, Ireland, during a peak infection period of COVID-19 in the city, which evaluates the different uncertainties in the WBE process.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".