Evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 identification methods through surveillance of companion animals in SARS-CoV-2-positive homes in North Carolina, March to December 2020
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We collected oral and/or rectal swabs and serum from dogs and cats living in homes with SARS-CoV-2-PCR-positive persons for SARS-CoV-2 PCR and serology testing. Pre-COVID-19 serum samples from dogs and cats were used as negative controls, and samples were tested in duplicate at different timepoints. Raw ELISA results scrutinized relative to known negative samples suggested that cut-offs for IgG seropositivity may require adjustment relative to previously proposed values, while proposed cut-offs for IgM require more extensive validation. A small number of pet dogs (2/43, 4.7%) and one cat (1/21, 4.8%) were positive for SARS-CoV-2 RNA, and 28.6 and 37.5% of cats and dogs were positive for anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG, respectively.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".