MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Analysis of Potential Risk of COVID-19 Infections in China Based on a Pairwise Epidemic Model

2020· preprint· en· W3009221227 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePreprints.org · 2020
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicCOVID-19 epidemiological studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaYork University
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsOutbreakQuarantineContact tracingCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)ChinaGeographyDemographyBasic reproduction numberPairwise comparisonPopulationPandemicEpidemic modelStatisticsMedicineBiologyDiseaseVirologyInfectious disease (medical specialty)MathematicsEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The ongoing outbreak of the novel coronavirus pneumonia (also known as COVID-19) has triggered a series of stringent control measures in China, such as city closure, traffic restrictions, contact tracing and household quarantine. These containment efforts often lead to changes in the contact pattern among individuals of the population. Many existing compartmental epidemic models fail to account for the effects of contact structure. In this paper, we devised a pairwise epidemic model to analyze the COVID-19 outbreak in China based on confirmed cases reported during the period February 3rd--17th, 2020. By explicitly incorporating the effects of family clusters and contact tracing followed by household quarantine and isolation, our model provides a good fit to the trajectory of COVID-19 infections and is useful to predict the epidemic trend. We obtained the average of the reproduction number $R=1.494$ ($95\%$ CI: $1.483-1.507$) for Hubei province and $R=1.178$ ($95\%$ CI: $1.145-1.158$) for China (except Hubei), suggesting that some existing studies may have overestimated the reproduction number by neglecting the dynamical correlations and clustering effects. We forecasted that the COVID-19 epidemic would peak on February 13th ($95\%$ CI: February $9-17$th) in Hubei and 6 days eariler in the regions outside Hubei. Moreover the epidemic was expected to last until the middle of March in China (except Hubei) and late April in Hubei. The sensitivity analysis shows that ongoing exposure for the susceptible and population clustering play an important role in the disease propagation. With the enforcement of household quarantine measures, the reproduction number $R$ effectively reduces and epidemic quantities decrease accordingly. Furthermore, we gave an answer to the public concern on how long the stringent containment strategies should maintain. Through numerical analysis, we suggested that the time for the resumption of work and production in China (except Hubei) and Hubei would be the middle of March and the end of April, 2020, respectively. These constructive suggestions may bring some immeasurable social-economic benefits in the long run.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.078
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.167
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.078
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.382
GPT teacher head0.465
Teacher spread0.084 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it