Temporal estimates of case-fatality rate for COVID-19 outbreaks in Canada and the United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Estimates of the case-fatality rate (CFR) associated with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vary widely in different population settings. We sought to estimate and compare the COVID-19 CFR in Canada and the United States while adjusting for 2 potential biases in crude CFR. METHODS: We used the daily incidence of confirmed COVID-19 cases and deaths in Canada and the US from Jan. 31 to Apr. 22, 2020. We applied a statistical method to minimize bias in the crude CFR by accounting for the survival interval as the lag time between disease onset and death, while considering reporting rates of COVID-19 cases less than 50% (95% confidence interval 10%-50%). RESULTS: Using data for confirmed cases in Canada, we estimated the crude CFR to be 4.9% on Apr. 22, 2020, and the adjusted CFR to be 5.5% (credible interval [CrI] 4.9%-6.4%). After we accounted for various reporting rates less than 50%, the adjusted CFR was estimated at 1.6% (CrI 0.7%-3.1%). The US crude CFR was estimated to be 5.4% on Apr. 20, 2020, with an adjusted CFR of 6.1% (CrI 5.4%-6.9%). With reporting rates of less than 50%, the adjusted CFR for the US was 1.78 (CrI 0.8%-3.6%). INTERPRETATION: Our estimates suggest that, if the reporting rate is less than 50%, the adjusted CFR of COVID-19 in Canada is likely to be less than 2%. The CFR estimates for the US were higher than those for Canada, but the adjusted CFR still remained below 2%. Quantification of case reporting can provide a more accurate measure of the virulence and disease burden of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2.
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 | 0.005 | 0.137 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".