COVID-19 in Ontario Long-term Care Facilities Project, a manually curated and validated database
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background and summaryIn late December 2019, a novel, emerging coronavirus, termed as "Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome-related Coronavirus Type 2" (SARS-CoV-2) was identified as the infectious agent responsible for the generally mild, but sometimes life-threatening and even fatal "Coronavirus Disease 2019" (COVID-19).As of December 7, 2021, COVID-19 has imposed a dramatic toll of infections (more than 265 million cases) and deaths (more than 2.5 million deaths).Long-term care facilities, including nursing homes, residential aged care facilities, retirement homes, skilled nursing facilities and assisted living communities, among others, have represented and still represent healthcare settings particularly vulnerable to the COVID-19 spread (1).For instance, in Canada, residents living in these facilities, being elderly and particularly frail, often with many co-morbidities, have been disproportionately hit by the pandemic, contributing to approximately two thirds (67%) of the entire total toll of deaths (2).As of December 5, 2021, 11.8% and 7.0% of COVID-19 outbreaks occurred in the Ontario region have affected long-term care facilities and retirement homes, respectively, according to Public Health Ontario (PHO).A recently published systematic review (3) has identified an array of parameters, including bed size and location in a high SARS-CoV-2 prevalence and mortality area, and number of staff members, as variables predicting COVID-19 related outcomes.However, in some cases, findings were contrasting, with a number of studies reporting that higher staffing was associated with a higher mortality rate and other investigations obtaining opposite results.Discrepancies in both the direction and magnitude of the effect could be found also for other parameters, such as quality indicators, like star rating, and ownership, or pandemic preparedness indicators, including implementation of public health interventions for controlling and managing prior infections and the number of previous outbreaks occurred in the facility.Such conflicting findings may depend on the specific nature of the jurisdiction and the setting of each long-term care facility.As such, local data is of paramount importance to inform public health workers, policy-and decision-makers and relevant stakeholders in a data-driven and evidence-based fashion.Several databases exist, mainly dedicated to (non-pharmaceutical and pharmaceutical) public health interventions (4, 5), underlying biological mechanisms, in terms of pathways and cascades (6), but, to the best of authors' knowledge, no one specifically on long-term care facilities.Specifically, there are websites that provide information for each long-term care home in Ontario such as the location of the home, type of facility, and general statistics pertaining to the care offered.However, the information is limited as the focus of this data is to provide
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,028 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,011 | 0,013 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,015 | 0,005 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».