Untangling factors associated with country-specific COVID-19 incidence, mortality and case fatality rates during the first quarter of 2020
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract At early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic which we are experiencing, the publicly reported incidence, mortality and case fatality rates (CFR) vary significantly between countries. Here we aim to untangle factors that are associated with the differences during the first quarter of the year 2020. Number of performed COVID-19 tests has a strong correlation with country-specific incidence (p < 2 × 10 −16 ) and mortality rate (p = 5.1 × 10 −8 ). Using multivariate linear regression we show that incidence and mortality rates correlate significantly with GDP per capita (p = 2.6 × 10 −15 and 7.0 × 10 −4 , respectively), country-specific duration of the outbreak (2.6 × 10 −4 and 0.0019), fraction of citizens over 65 years old (p = 0.0049 and 3.8 × 10 −4 ) and level of press freedom (p = 0.021 and 0.019) which cumulatively explain 80% of variability of incidence and more than 60% of variability of mortality of the disease during the period analyzed. Country hemisphere demonstrated significant correlation only with mortality (p = 0.17 and 0.036) whereas population density (p = 0.94 and p = 0.75) and latitude (p = 0.61 and 0.059) did not reach significance in our model. Case fatality rate is shown to rise as the outbreak progresses (p=0.028). We rank countries by COVID-19 mortality corrected for incidence and the factors that were shown to affect it, and by CFR corrected for outbreak duration, yielding very similar results. Among the countries where the outbreak started after the 15th of February and with at least 1000 registered patients during the period analyzed, the lowest corrected CFR are seen in Israel, South Africa and Chile. The ranking results should be considered with caution as they do not consider all confounding factors or data reporting biases.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".