Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35569934›Full record

ArticleMilitary medicine2023

Analysis of the Virus SARS-CoV-2 as a Potential Bioweapon in Light of International Literature.

Csaba Bence Farkas, Gábor Dudás, Gergely Csaba Babinszky, László Földi

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Military medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 22% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Csaba Bence FarkasDepartment of Pathology, Medical Centre, Hungarian Defence Forces, Budapest 1134, Hungary.ORCID 0000-0002-1324-5141
Gábor DudásMobile Biological Laboratory, Medical Centre, Hungarian Defence Forces, Budapest 1134, Hungary.
Gergely Csaba BabinszkyMobile Biological Laboratory, Medical Centre, Hungarian Defence Forces, Budapest 1134, Hungary.
László FöldiDepartment of Operations and Support, Faculty of Military Sciences and Officer Training, University of Public Service, Budapest 1101, Hungary.ORCID 0000-0001-7575-7188
Zrínyi Miklós National Defence University · HULudovika University of Public Service · HU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionAs of early 2022, the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic still represents a worldwide medical emergency situation. The ongoing vaccination programs can slow down the spread of the virus; however, from time to time, the newly emerging variants of concern and antivaccination movements carry the possibility for the disease to remain in our daily lives. After the appearance of SARS-CoV-2, there was scholarly debate whether the virus was of natural origin, or it emerged from a laboratory, some even thinking the agent's potential biological weapon properties suggest the latter scenario. Later, the bioweapon theory was dismissed by the majority of experts, but the question remains that despite its natural origin, how potent a biological weapon the SARS-CoV-2 virus can become over time. MATERIALS AND

methodsBased on 12 bioweapon threat assessment criteria already published in 2018, we performed a literature search and review, focusing on relevant potential bioweapon properties of the virus SARS-CoV-2. Instead of utilizing a survey among experts, we tried to qualify and quantify characteristics according to the available data found in peer-reviewed papers. We also identified other key elements not mentioned in the original 12 bioweapon criteria, which can play an important role in assessing future biological weapons.

resultsAccording to the international literature we analyzed, SARS-CoV-2 is a moderately infectious agent (ID50 estimated between 100 and 1,000), with high infection-to-disease ratio (35%-45% rate of asymptomatic infected) and medium incubation period (1-34 days, mean 6-7 days). Its morbidity and mortality rate can be categorized as medium (high morbidity rate with significant mortality rate). It can be easily produced in large quantities, has high aerosol stability, and has moderate environmental stability. Based on laboratory experiments and statistical model analysis, it can form and is contagious with droplet nuclei, and with spray technique utilization, it could be weaponized effectively. Several prophylactic countermeasures are available in the form of vaccines; however, specific therapeutic options are much more limited. In connection with the original assessment criteria, the SARS-CoV-2 only achieved a "0" score on the ease of detection because of readily available, relatively sensitive, and specific rapid antigen tests. Based on the pandemic experience, we also propose three new assessment categories: one that establishes a mean to measure the necessary quarantine restrictions related to a biological agent, another one that can represent the personal protective equipment required to work safely with a particular agent, and a third one that quantifies the overall disruptive capability, based on previous real-life experiences. These factors could further specify the threat level related to potential biological weapons.

conclusionsOur results show that the virus can become a potent bioweapon candidate in the future, achieving a total score of 24 out of 36 on the original 12 criteria. The SARS-CoV-2 has already proven its pandemic generating potential and, despite worldwide efforts, still remains an imminent threat. In order to be prepared for the future possibility of the virus arising as a bioweapon, we must remain cautious and take the necessary countermeasures.

Indexed as

COVID-19SARS-CoV-2Biological Warfare AgentsHumansPandemicsResearch DesignBiological Warfare Agents

Identifiers

PMID35569934
PMCPMC9384074
OpenAlexW4280524778

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.