MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407239353 · doi:10.1186/s12879-025-10580-8

Risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection before and after the Omicron wave in a cohort of healthcare workers in Ontario, Canada

2025· article· en· W4407239353 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Jorge Martínez-Cajas, Ann Jolly, Yanping Gong, Gerald E. Evans, Santiago Pérez-Patrigeón, Bradley P. Stoner, T. Hugh Guan, Beatriz Alvarado

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Infectious Diseases · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfection Control and Ventilation
Canadian institutionsKingston Health Sciences CentreOttawa Public HealthQueen's University
FundersPhysicians' Services Incorporated Foundation
KeywordsMedical microbiologyMedicineSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Health careCohort2019-20 coronavirus outbreakParasitologyCohort studyPandemicTropical medicineVirologyEmergency medicineInternal medicinePathologyOutbreakInfectious disease (medical specialty)Disease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Longitudinal healthcare worker (HCW) cohorts throughout the COVID-19 pandemic provide a unique opportunity to study the relative contributions of various exposures to infection risk over time. This study aimed to examine how demographic, health, occupational, household and community factors influenced the SARS-CoV-2 infection risk in a cohort of HCWs in Southeastern Ontario, Canada, during the early pandemic and the Omicron waves. We compared the contribution of these factors to infection risk and explored the implications for future epidemic preparedness and the protection of HCWs. METHODS: We conducted a longitudinal analysis using data from a cohort of HCWs recruited from one acute care hospital and four long-term care homes. The analysis was divided into two periods: the initial phase of the pandemic (period #1) and the first three Omicron waves (period #2). We employed Poisson regression for period #1 and Cox regression for period #2 to examine associations of demographic factors (age, sex, ethnicity, migration status, income insufficiency), health factors (chronic conditions, smoking history, SARS-CoV-2 vaccination status), household factors (exposure to COVID-19), occupational factors (work role, exposure to COVID-19 patients, personal protective equipment access, aerosol-generating procedures) and community exposures (use of masks, distance, hand-washing) with SARS-CoV-2 infection. RESULTS: At period #1, 17/208 (8.2%) HCWs reported having had SARS-CoV-2 infection. At period #2, 65/167 (38.3%) reported at least one SARS-CoV-2 infection. In period #1, factors associated with increased risk of infection included working in a long-term care home, exposure to more COVID-19-positive patients, working as a nurse or therapist, and inadequate use of personal protective equipment. In period #2, the hazard of infection was higher among HCWs who had COVID-19-infected children at home, whereas the use of protective measures in the community (maintaining social distance, mask-wearing) and receiving a vaccine booster were associated with reduced risk. Providing care to COVID-19 patients was not associated with the risk of acquiring SARS-CoV-2 infection at period #2. CONCLUSIONS: During the Omicron wave, community and household exposures, but not occupational exposure to COVID-19 cases, were the primary factors contributing to infection risk in HCWs. This contrasts with the early waves of the pandemic where occupational exposures played a significant role. These findings may be explained by the effectiveness of institutional interventions in reducing the risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission in healthcare settings, alongside the failure of community-level interventions to mitigate risk during the Omicron period.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.359

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Infectious DiseasesSame topicInfection Control and VentilationFrench-language works237,207