Evaluation for the Presence of SARS-CoV-2 in CO <sub>2</sub> Laser Plume
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Importance Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a highly infectious virus that has been reported to be transmitted via aerosolization and other aerosol-generating activities. However, viral plumes from CO 2 lasers have yet to be investigated. Objective Evaluate the viability of SARS-CoV-2 in the CO 2 laser plume in a porcine model for laryngeal surgery. Design Experimental studies. Setting Laboratory. Participants Wild-type SARS-CoV-2 ( Wt ), Omicron SARS-CoV-2 (Omicron), and fluorescent SARS-CoV-2 (GFP). Intervention Three viral strains on porcine larynx exposed to CO 2 laser setting—1.5, 7, and 15 W. Main Outcome Measures The laser plume was collected during ablation. Dilutant of the plume was then applied to Vero E6 cells for culture; quantitative real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR) (in duplicate) and fluoroscopy were used to establish the presence of viable virus. Results Wt , Omicron, and GFP strains were found to be present on the larynx before and after the application of the laser by qPCR copies (cp) per microliter (µl). After ablation with 1.5, 7.0, and 15 W with Wt , the plume samples were shown to be 0, 0, and <10 cp/µl, respectively. For GFP, at all intensity levels, the copies were less than 10 cp/µl. Omicron did not show any copies at any of the power levels. Cultures did not show the presence of viable Wt , Omicron, and GFP strains in any of the collected laser plumes. Conclusion The CO 2 laser plume of SARS-CoV-2 aerosolized minimal viral particles. None of the tested experimental conditions demonstrated a viable virus after laryngeal ablation with the CO 2 laser. Relevance CO 2 laser use in the context of virus SARS-CoV-2 suggests minimal transmission risks associated with CO 2 laser procedures when appropriate safety protocols are followed.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".