MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4318919769 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0264294

Does 2x2 airplane passenger contact tracing for infectious respiratory pathogens work? A systematic review of the evidence

2023· review· en· W4318919769 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Anna C Rafferty, Kelly Bofkin, Whitney Hughes, Sara Souter, Ian Hosegood, Robyn N. Hall, Luis Furuya‐Kanamori, Bette Liu, Michael Drane, Toby Regan, Molly Halder, Catherine Kelaher, Martyn Kirk

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicCOVID-19 epidemiological studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Health and Medical Research CouncilMedical Research Council
KeywordsContact tracingTransmission (telecommunications)MedicineMeta-analysisTuberculosisSystematic reviewImmunologyEnvironmental healthBiologyCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)MEDLINEInfectious disease (medical specialty)Internal medicineDiseaseComputer sciencePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We critically appraised the literature regarding in-flight transmission of a range of respiratory infections to provide an evidence base for public health policies for contact tracing passengers, given the limited pathogen-specific data for SARS-CoV-2 currently available. Using PubMed, Web of Science, and other databases including preprints, we systematically reviewed evidence of in-flight transmission of infectious respiratory illnesses. A meta-analysis was conducted where total numbers of persons on board a specific flight was known, to calculate a pooled Attack Rate (AR) for a range of pathogens. The quality of the evidence provided was assessed using a bias assessment tool developed for in-flight transmission investigations of influenza which was modelled on the PRISMA statement and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. We identified 103 publications detailing 165 flight investigations. Overall, 43.7% (72/165) of investigations provided evidence for in-flight transmission. H1N1 influenza A virus had the highest reported pooled attack rate per 100 persons (AR = 1.17), followed by SARS-CoV-2 (AR = 0.54) and SARS-CoV (AR = 0.32), Mycobacterium tuberculosis (TB, AR = 0.25), and measles virus (AR = 0.09). There was high heterogeneity in estimates between studies, except for TB. Of the 72 investigations that provided evidence for in-flight transmission, 27 investigations were assessed as having a high level of evidence, 23 as medium, and 22 as low. One third of the investigations that reported on proximity of cases showed transmission occurring beyond the 2x2 seating area. We suggest that for emerging pathogens, in the absence of pathogen-specific evidence, the 2x2 system should not be used for contact tracing. Instead, alternate contact tracing protocols and close contact definitions for enclosed areas, such as the same cabin on an aircraft or other forms of transport, should be considered as part of a whole of journey approach.

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)0.033
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.133
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.177

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0330.133
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0140.017
Bibliometrics0.0140.012
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0040.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.584
GPT teacher head0.454
Teacher spread0.130 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations7
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicCOVID-19 epidemiological studiesFrench-language works237,207