Human microbiome transfer in the built environment differs based on occupants, objects, and buildings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Compared to microbiomes on other skin sites, the bacterial microbiome of the human hand has been found to have greater variability across time. To increase understanding regarding the longitudinal transfer of the hand microbiome to objects in the built environment, and vice versa, 22 participants provided skin microbiome samples from their dominant hands, as well as from frequently and infrequently touched objects in their office environments. Additional longitudinal samples from home environments were obtained from a subset of 11 participants. We observed stability of the microbiomes of both the hand and built environments within the office and home settings; however, differences in the microbial communities were detected across the two built environments. Occupants' frequency of touching an object correlated to that object having a higher relative abundance of human microbes, yet the percent of shared microbes was variable by participants. Finally, objects that were horizontal surfaces in the built environment had higher microbial diversity as compared to objects and the occupants' hands. This study adds to the existing knowledge of microbiomes of the built environment, enables more detailed studies of indoor microbial transfer, and contributes to future models and building interventions to reduce negative outcomes and improve health and well-being.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".