MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4311561668 · doi:10.1093/ofid/ofac492.1506

1879. Detection of COVID-19 Outbreaks in Long-Term Care Homes Using Built Environment Testing for SARS-CoV-2: A Multicentre Prospective Study

2022· article· en· W4311561668 on OpenAlexaffabout
Michael Fralick, Jason Moggridge, Lucas Castellani, Sylva L. Donaldson, David S. Guttman, Aaron Hinz, Laura Hug, Douglas G. Manuel, Allison McGeer, Hebah Mejbel, Caroline Nott, Ashley Raudanskis, Nisha Thampi, Alex Wong, Veronica Zanichelli, Rees Kassen, Derek R. MacFadden

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Forum Infectious Diseases · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicCOVID-19 epidemiological studies
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalMount Sinai HospitalUniversity of WaterlooCarleton UniversityUniversity of OttawaSault Area HospitalAgricultural Research Institute of OntarioUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOutbreakCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)MedicineSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)2019-20 coronavirus outbreakEnvironmental healthLong-term carePopulationProspective cohort studyEmergency medicineVeterinary medicineVirologyInternal medicineDiseaseInfectious disease (medical specialty)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Environmental surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 via wastewater has become an invaluable tool for population-level surveillance of COVID-19. More highly resolved environmental sampling approaches may also be useful for surveillance. Built environment sampling may provide a spatially refined approach for surveillance of COVID-19 in congregate living settings. Methods We conducted a prospective study of 10 long-term care homes (LTCHs) in both urban and rural settings in Ontario Canada between September 2021 and April 2022. Floor surfaces were sampled weekly at multiple locations within each building and were analyzed for the presence of SARS-CoV-2 using qPCR. The exposure variable was detection of SARS-CoV-2 on floors. The primary outcome was the presence of a COVID-19 outbreak. We calculated the test characteristics of the presence of SARS-CoV-2 on floors for detection of COVID-19 outbreaks. Results We followed 10 LTCHs for 214 cumulative weeks, and collected 3,219 swabs from 183 unique locations. Overall, 15 COVID-19 outbreaks occurred with 74.9 cumulative weeks of outbreaks. During time periods when there were outbreaks of COVID-19 the proportion of floor swabs positive for SaRS-CoV-2 was 50.8% (95% CI: 47.7-53.9). During time periods where there were no outbreaks of COVID-19 the proportion of floor swabs positive was 15.8% (95% CI:14.3-17.3). Using the proportion of positive floor swabs for SARS-CoV-2 to predict COVID-19 outbreak status for a given week, the area under the receiver operating curve was 0.84 (95% CI: 0.76-0.92). Using thresholds of ≥10%, ≥30%, and ≥50%, the prevalence of floor swabs positive for SARS-CoV-2 yielded positive predictive values for outbreak of 0.52 (0.43-0.61), 0.65 (0.53-0.75), and 0.72 (0.58-0.83) respectively, and negative predictive values of 0.93 (0.86-0.97), 0.85 (0.78-0.91), and 0.80 (0.73-0.86) respectively (Figure 1). 13 outbreaks had floor sampling performed in the week prior to them being identified, and of these 7 (54%) had positive swab proportions exceeding 30% in the week prior to the outbreak. Figure 1.Test characteristics of built environment floor swabs for predicting COVID-19 outbreaks in LTCH. Figure 1. Test characteristics of different thresholds for percentage of floor swabs positive for SARS-CoV-2 at a given LTCH for predicting active COVID-19 outbreak in the same building in the same week. NPV = negative predictive value, PPV = positive predictive value, Sens = sensitivity, Spec = specificity. Conclusion Detection of SARS-CoV-2 on floors is strongly associated with COVID-19 outbreaks in LTCHs. These data suggest a potential role for floor sampling in improving early outbreak detection and management. Disclosures Michael Fralick, MD, ProofDx: Advisor/Consultant Doug Manuel, MD, PhD, World Bank: Advisor/Consultant.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.150
Threshold uncertainty score0.297

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.150
GPT teacher head0.424
Teacher spread0.274 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen Forum Infectious DiseasesSame topicCOVID-19 epidemiological studiesFrench-language works237,207