| Literature DB >> 35968394 |
Bin Deng1, Weikang Liu1, Zhinan Guo2, Li Luo1, Tianlong Yang1, Jiefeng Huang1, Buasiyamu Abudunaibi1, Yidun Zhang2, Xue Ouyang2, Demeng Wang2, Chenghao Su3, Tianmu Chen1.
Abstract
Objective: This study elaborated the natural history parameters of Delta variant, explored the differences in detection cycle thresholds (Ct) among cases.Entities:
Keywords: COVID-19; Cycle threshold value; Natural history
Year: 2022 PMID: 35968394 PMCID: PMC9361627 DOI: 10.1016/j.idm.2022.07.007
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Infect Dis Model ISSN: 2468-0427
Fig. 1Fitting distribution of incubation period and intergenerational relationship.
(A: Fitting distribution of incubation period; B: Fitting distribution of latent period; C: Fitting distribution of series interval; D: Fitting distribution of Transmission generation times; E: Fitting distribution of generation time lower; F: Fitting distribution of generation time uper.).
Fig. 2Difference in onset-reporting time of infected persons in different finding methods.
Fig. 3Time-dependent graph of the time required for detection.
Fig. 4Differences in Ct values of infected persons with different detection methods.
(Ct∗: cycle threshold).
Fig. 5Differences in Ct values between different testing companies and genotypes.
(Ct∗: cycle threshold).
Fig. 6Gender differences in Ct values for different testing companies and genotype testing.
(Ct∗: cycle threshold).
Fig. 7Age-specific differences in Ct values for different testing companies and genotype testing.
(Ct∗: cycle threshold).
Fig. 8Differences in Ct values detected by two testing companies at different exposure-to-detection durations and onset-to-detection durations.
(Ct∗: cycle threshold).
Fig. 9Differences of half-vaccination and vaccination in Ct value.
(Ct∗: cycle threshold).
Fig. 10Differences in Ct values of infected patients with different clinical severity.