Estimation of COVID-19–induced depletion of hospital resources in Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The global spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) continues in several jurisdictions, causing substantial strain to health care systems. The purpose of our study was to predict the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on patient outcomes and use of hospital resources in Ontario, Canada. METHODS: We developed an individual-level simulation to model the flow of patients with COVID-19 through the hospital system in Ontario. We simulated different combined scenarios of epidemic trajectory and hospital health care capacity. Our outcomes included the number of patients who needed admission to the ward or to the intensive care unit (ICU) with or without the need for mechanical ventilation, number of days to resource depletion, number of patients awaiting resources and number of deaths. RESULTS: We found that with effective early public health measures, hospital system resources would not be depleted. For scenarios with late or ineffective implementation of physical distancing, hospital resources would be depleted within 14-26 days, and in the worst case scenario, 13 321 patients would die while waiting for needed resources. Resource depletion would be avoided or delayed with aggressive measures to increase ICU, ventilator and acute care hospital capacities. INTERPRETATION: We found that without aggressive physical distancing measures, the Ontario hospital system would have been inadequately equipped to manage the expected number of patients with COVID-19 despite a rapid increase in capacity. This lack of hospital resources would have led to an increase in mortality. By slowing the spread of the disease using public health measures and by increasing hospital capacity, Ontario may have avoided catastrophic stresses to its hospitals.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.083 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".