Estimated surge in hospitalization and intensive care due to the novel coronavirus pandemic in the Greater Toronto Area, Canada: a mathematical modeling study with application at two local area hospitals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background A hospital-level pandemic response involves anticipating local surge in healthcare needs. Methods We developed a mechanistic transmission model to simulate a range of scenarios of COVID-19 spread in the Greater Toronto Area. We estimated healthcare needs against 2019 daily admissions using healthcare administrative data, and applied outputs to hospital-specific data on catchment, capacity, and baseline non-COVID admissions to estimate potential surge by day 90 at two hospitals (St. Michael’s Hospital [SMH] and St. Joseph’s Health Centre [SJHC]). We examined fast/large, default, and slow/small epidemics, wherein the default scenario (R0 2.4) resembled the early trajectory in the GTA. Results Without further interventions, even a slow/small epidemic exceeded the city’s daily ICU capacity for patients without COVID-19. In a pessimistic default scenario, for SMH and SJHC to remain below their non-ICU bed capacity, they would need to reduce non-COVID inpatient care by 70% and 58% respectively. SMH would need to create 86 new ICU beds, while SJHC would need to reduce its ICU beds for non-COVID care by 72%. Uncertainty in local epidemiological features was more influential than uncertainty in clinical severity. If physical distancing reduces contacts by 20%, maximizing the diagnostic capacity or syndromic diagnoses at the community-level could avoid a surge at each hospital. Interpretation As distribution of the city’s surge varies across hospitals over time, efforts are needed to plan and redistribute ICU care to where demand is expected. Hospital-level surge is based on community-level transmission, with community-level strategies key to mitigating each hospital’s surge.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".