Spatiotemporal Cluster Detection for COVID-19 Outbreak Surveillance: Descriptive Analysis Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: During the peak of the winter 2020-2021 surge, the number of weekly reported COVID-19 outbreaks in Washington State was 231; the majority occurred in high-priority settings such as workplaces, community settings, and schools. The Washington State Department of Health used automated address matching to identify clusters at health care facilities. No other systematic, statewide outbreak detection methods were in place. This was a gap given the high volume of cases, which delayed investigations and decreased data completeness, potentially leading to undetected outbreaks. We initiated statewide cluster detection using SaTScan, implementing a space-time permutation model to identify COVID-19 clusters for investigation. OBJECTIVE: To improve outbreak detection, the Washington State Department of Health initiated a systematic cluster detection model to identify timely and actionable COVID-19 clusters for local health jurisdiction (LHJ) investigation and resource prioritization. This report details the model's implementation and the assessment of the tool's effectiveness. METHODS: In total, 6 LHJs participated in a pilot to test model parameters including analysis type, geographic aggregation, cluster radius, and data lag. Parameters were determined through heuristic criteria to detect clusters early when they are smaller, making interventions more feasible. This study reviews all clusters detected after statewide implementation from July 17 to December 17, 2021. The clusters were analyzed by LHJ population and disease incidence. Clusters were compared with reported outbreaks. RESULTS: A weekly, LHJ-specific retrospective space-time permutation model identified 2874 new clusters during this period. While the weekly analysis included case data from the prior 3 weeks, 58.25% (n=1674) of all clusters identified were timely-having occurred within 1 week of the analysis and early enough for intervention to prevent further transmission. There were 2874 reported outbreaks during this same period. Of those, 363 (12.63%) matched to at least one SaTScan cluster. The most frequent settings among reported and matched outbreaks were schools and youth programs (n=825, 28.71% and n=108, 29.8%), workplaces (n=617, 21.46% and n=56, 15%), and long-term care facilities (n=541, 18.82% and n=99, 27.3%). Settings with the highest percentage of clusters that matched outbreaks were community settings (16/72, 22%) and congregate housing (44/212, 20.8%). The model identified approximately one-third (119/363, 32.8%) of matched outbreaks before cases were associated with the outbreak event in our surveillance system. CONCLUSIONS: Our goal was to routinely and systematically identify timely and actionable COVID-19 clusters statewide. Regardless of population or incidence, the model identified reasonably sized, timely clusters statewide, meeting the objective. Among some high-priority settings subject to public health interventions throughout the pandemic, such as schools and community settings, the model identified clusters that were matched to reported outbreaks. In workplaces, another high-priority setting, results suggest the model might be able to identify outbreaks sooner than existing outbreak detection methods.
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
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 tête enseignante, 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 ».