MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4315499011 · doi:10.3390/ijerph20021248

Hands off the Mink! Using Environmental Sampling for SARS-CoV-2 Surveillance in American Mink

2023· article· en· W4315499011 on OpenAlexafffund
Ellen Boyd, Michelle Coombe, Natalie Prystajecky, Jessica M. Caleta, Inna Sekirov, John R. Tyson, Chelsea G. Himsworth

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSARS-CoV-2 detection and testing
Canadian institutionsBC Centre for Disease ControlMinistry of AgricultureGovernment of British ColumbiaUniversity of British Columbia
FundersGenome British Columbia
KeywordsMinkOutbreakAmerican minkBiologyPandemicSampling (signal processing)Veterinary medicineEnvironmental healthVirologyCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)DiseaseMedicineEcologyPathologyInfectious disease (medical specialty)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, numerous non-human species were shown to be susceptible to natural infection by SARS-CoV-2, including farmed American mink. Once infected, American mink can transfer the virus from mink to human and mink to mink, resulting in a high rate of viral mutation. Therefore, outbreak surveillance on American mink farms is imperative for both mink and human health. Historically, disease surveillance on mink farms has consisted of a combination of mortality and live animal sampling; however, these methodologies have significant limitations. This study compared PCR testing of both deceased and live animal samples to environmental samples on an active outbreak premise, to determine the utility of environmental sampling. Environmental sampling mirrored trends in both deceased and live animal sampling in terms of percent positivity and appeared more sensitive in some low-prevalence instances. PCR CT values of environmental samples were significantly different from live animal samples' CT values and were consistently high (mean CT = 36.2), likely indicating a low amount of viral RNA in the samples. There is compelling evidence in favour of environmental sampling for the purpose of disease surveillance, specifically as an early warning tool for SARS-CoV-2; however, further work is needed to ultimately determine whether environmental samples are viable sources for molecular epidemiology investigations.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.242
GPT teacher head0.467
Teacher spread0.224 · 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

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Environmental Research and Public HealthSame topicSARS-CoV-2 detection and testingFrench-language works237,207