Correlation Between the SARS-CoV-2 Seroprevalence and the Theoretical Occupational Risk (TOR) and COVID-19 Morbidity Score (MBS) Among Local Public Workers in the Centre-Val de Loire Region – CovidOr Study

preprint OA: closed CC-BY-4.0
AI-generated summary by claude@2026-07, 2026-07-14

This study found that neither occupational risk nor comorbidity burden was independently associated with SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity in French public workers before widespread vaccination.

One-sentence paraphrase of the abstract; not a substitute for reading it. No clinical advice. How this works

AI-generated deep summary by claude@2026-07, 2026-07-14 · read from full text

This CovidOr study examined local public workers in the Centre-Val de Loire region to determine whether SARS‑CoV‑2 seroprevalence correlated with a theoretical occupational risk score (TOR) and a COVID‑19 morbidity score (MBS). The paper compares seropositivity patterns with these modeled risk measures as part of the study’s assessment of occupational exposure and reported disease burden. A key limitation is that the occupational risk and morbidity are derived from theoretical scoring rather than direct, individualized exposure or clinical confirmation described in the provided text. The paper does not explicitly discuss endometriosis or adenomyosis; it was included in the corpus via a keyword match in the upstream search index.

Read from the paper's body, not the abstract. Not a substitute for reading the paper. No clinical advice. How this works

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To examine whether SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence among local public workers in Centre–Val de Loire (France) was associated with a theoretical occupational risk (TOR) score and with a COVID-19 morbidity score (MBS). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: CovidOr was a multicentre cross-sectional study conducted before widespread vaccination (August–December 2020) across Orléans Métropole, the Centre–Val de Loire Region, and the Communes of Terres du Val de Loire (CCTVL). A total of 3,602 municipal and regional employees (18-84 years) underwent rapid serological testing (COVID PRESTO®). EXPOSURE AND MEASURES: TOR summarised three job-related dimensions (daily exposure to disease/infection, daily public contact, and physical proximity; 0-3 points, grouped as low, moderate, high risk). MBS quantified higher-risk comorbidities for severe COVID-19 (0-5 points). A multivariable logistic regression modelled seropositivity (dependent variable) with age, sex, TOR, known COVID-19 contact, symptoms, centre, and MBS as covariates. Bonferroni correction set α=0.625%. RESULTS: Seropositivity was detected in 182/3,570 analysable participants (overall seroprevalence 5.1%). Mean age was 46.4 years; 66.6% were women. Neither age (OR 1.008; 95% CI 0.988-1.029; p=0.415) nor sex (OR 1.153; 0.731-1.819; p=0.541) was associated with seropositivity. Seroprevalence by TOR category was 0.08% (low), 2.28% (moderate), and 2.76% (high). Although TOR showed an unadjusted association (OR 1.70; 1.146-2.549; p=0.009), it was not significant after multiplicity correction (α=0.625%). Seropositive participants had a lower MBS (OR 0.752; 0.582-0.971; p=0.029), but this also lost significance after correction. Asymptomatic infections represented 31.9% of seropositive cases. Results were robust to adjustment for centre. CONCLUSIONS: In this large pre-vaccination cohort of local public workers, neither occupational risk as captured by TOR nor comorbidity burden (MBS) was independently associated with SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity after correction for multiple testing. These findings suggest that, in this setting, workplace contact intensity and aggregated comorbidity risk did not drive infection risk, underscoring the potential predominance of non-occupational exposures and the importance of universal prevention measures.
Full text 621 characters · extracted from oa-doi-fallback · click to expand
There is a newer version available for this {{ publicationType }}. View latest version {{ publication.field_name }} {{ publication.subfield_name }} Copyright: © {{ publicationYear }} {{ publication.presentation_authors[0].full_name + (publication.presentation_authors.length > 1 ? ' et al' : '') }}. This is an open access publication distributed under the terms of the CC BY 4.0 License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Check the {{ publicationType | capitalize }} Source for copyright and license information. Listen on

Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below. Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy (via DOI) is the canonical version.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Ask this paper AI returns verbatim quotes from the full text · source: oa-doi-fallback

Answers must be backed by verbatim quotes from this paper's full text. Hallucinated quotes are dropped automatically; if no verbatim passage answers the question, we say so. How this works

Citation neighborhood (no data yet)

We don't have any in-corpus citations linked to this paper yet. This is a recent paper (2025) — citers typically take a year or two to land, and the OpenAlex reference graph may still be filling in.

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-05-20T01:45:00.602351+00:00
unpaywall
last seen: 2026-05-24T02:00:01.246996+00:00
License: CC-BY-4.0