ArticleScientific reports2025
Latent class analysis identifies risk groups to model the expected benefits of SARS-CoV-2 interventions among university students.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Non-pharmaceutical public health measures (PHMs) were central to pre-vaccination efforts to reduce Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) exposure risk; heterogeneity in adherence placed bounds on their potential effectiveness, and correlation in their adoption makes assessing the impact attributable to an individual PHM difficult. During the Fall 2020 semester, we used a longitudinal cohort design in a university student population to conduct a behavioral survey of intention to adhere to PHMs, paired with an IgG serosurvey to quantify SARS-CoV-2 exposure at the end of the semester. Using latent class analysis on behavioral survey responses, we identified three distinct groups among the 673 students with IgG samples: 256 (38.04%) students were in the most adherent group, intending to follow all guidelines, 306 (46.21%) in the moderately-adherent group, and 111 (15.75%) in the least-adherent group, rarely intending to follow any measure, with adherence negatively correlated with seropositivity of 25.4%, 32.2% and 37.7%, respectively. Moving all individuals in an SIR model into the most adherent group resulted in a 77-96% reduction in seroprevalence, dependent on assumed assortativity. The potential impact of increasing PHM adherence was limited by the substantial exposure risk in the large proportion of students already following all PHMs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.