The Impact of SARS-CoV-2 on Work Absence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to compare SARS-CoV-2 infection and work absence rates between vaccinated and unvaccinated employees during a 2-year pandemic period. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional study with 2107 participants. Primary outcomes were as follows: total days missed; and main exposure: vaccination status. Analyses included t tests to compare absence days and analysis of variance to evaluate confounders. Mixed-effects logistic regression assessed infection risk, incorporating community prevalence as a fixed effect and work location as a random effect. RESULTS: Vaccinated employees missed slightly fewer days (0.16 days), though not statistically significant ( P = 0.574). Symptom severity and job status were linked to higher absenteeism. Vaccination had a small but significant protective effect ( P = 0.045). Remote work correlated moderately with reduced absenteeism. CONCLUSIONS: Vaccination lowered infection risk but not absenteeism due to uniform quarantine policies. Remote work reduced absenteeism and should be integrated into future interventions to support vulnerable workers.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".