MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416773169 · doi:10.1080/09603123.2025.2591162

Tracking SARS-CoV-2 transmission: evaluation of the Québec wastewater surveillance program

2025· article· en· W4416773169 on OpenAlexaffabout
C J Jobin, Mathieu Dubé, Frédéric Bouchard, F Lamothe, Louise Duquesne, Caroline Huot

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Environmental Health Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSARS-CoV-2 detection and testing
Canadian institutionsInstitut National de Santé Publique du Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWastewaterBottleneckSewage treatmentMissing dataSampling (signal processing)Tracking (education)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Québec's COVID-19 wastewater surveillance program, initiated in March 2022, was evaluated after its first year to determine its effectiveness in tracking SARS-CoV-2 transmission. The evaluation assessed the program's validity, completeness, and timeliness. As per visual analysis, results showed temporal coherence between wastewater and clinical data, although this was period dependent. Cross-correlation function analysis failed to generate consistent results and interpretable patterns between wastewater signal and clinical indicators. The percentage of unplanned missing wastewater results was minimal (ranging from 1% to 21%, with a median of 3%). Planned missing data caused by different sampling regimen required adaptation in data processing and interpretation. The median time between infection and wastewater data availability was 13.1 days, compared to 8 days for clinical data, although high variability in delays was seen between sampling sites. The wastewater data dissemination delay was the main bottleneck to provide timely information to public health authorities. This initial evaluation highlights the program's potential to generate complementary information to clinical data and can help future studies navigate the complexities of wastewater monitoring.

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)0.004
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.507
Threshold uncertainty score0.286

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.197
GPT teacher head0.495
Teacher spread0.299 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Environmental Health ResearchSame topicSARS-CoV-2 detection and testingFrench-language works237,207