Air change rate and SARS-CoV-2 exposure in hospitals and residences: A meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As SARS-CoV-2 swept across the globe, increased ventilation and implementation of air cleaning were emphasized by the US CDC and WHO as important strategies to reduce the risk of inhalation exposure to the virus. To assess whether higher ventilation and air cleaning rates lead to lower exposure risk to SARS-CoV-2, 1274 manuscripts published between April 2020 and September 2022 were screened using key words "airborne SARS-CoV-2 or "SARS-CoV-2 aerosol". Ninety-three studies involved air sampling at locations with known sources (hospitals and residences) were selected and associated data were compiled. Two metrics were used to assess exposure risk: SARS-CoV-2 concentration and SARS-CoV-2 detection rate in air samples. Locations were categorized by type (hospital or residence) and proximity to the sampling location housing the isolated/quarantined patient (primary or secondary). The results showed that hospital wards had lower airborne virus concentrations than residential isolation rooms. A negative correlation was found between airborne virus concentrations in primary-occupancy areas and air changes per hour (ACH). In hospital settings, sample positivity rates were significantly reduced in secondary-occupancy areas compared to primary-occupancy areas, but they were similar across sampling locations in residential settings. ACH and sample positivity rates were negatively correlated, though the effect was diminished when ACH values exceeded 8. While limitations associated with diverse sampling protocols exist, data considered by this meta-analysis support the notion that higher ACH may reduce exposure risks to the virus in ambient air.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".