MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3030762698 · doi:10.1097/md.0000000000019925

The computation of case fatality rate for novel coronavirus (COVID-19) based on Bayes theorem

2020· article· en· W3030762698 on OpenAlexaff
Chi-Sheng Chang, Yu-Tsen Yeh, Tsair‐Wei Chien, Jui-Chung John Lin, Bor‐Wen Cheng, Shu‐Chun Kuo

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicCOVID-19 epidemiological studies
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Particle Physics
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCase fatality rateOutbreakBayes' theoremCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)EstimationDemographyMortality rateStatisticsEpidemiologyVirologyDiseaseBayesian probabilityInternal medicineMathematicsInfectious disease (medical specialty)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: When a new disease such starts to spread, the commonly asked questions are how deadly is it? and how many people are likely to die of this outbreak? The World Health Organization (WHO) announced in a press conference on January 29, 2020 that the death rate of COVID-19 was 2% on the case fatality rate (CFR). It was underestimated assuming no lag days from symptom onset to deaths while many CFR formulas have been proposed, the estimation on Bays theorem is worthy of interpretation. Hence, it is hypothesized that the over-loaded burdens of treating patients and capacities to contain the outbreak (LSBHRS) may increase the CFR. METHODS: We downloaded COVID-19 outbreak numbers from January 21 to February 14, 2020, in countries/regions on a daily basis from Github that contains information on confirmed cases in >30 Chinese locations and other countries/regions. The pros and cons were compared among the 5 formula of CFR, including [A] deaths/confirmed; [B] deaths/(deaths + recovered); [C] deaths/(cases x days ago); [D] Bayes estimation based on [A] and the outbreak (LSBHRS) in each country/region; and [E] Bayes estimation based on [C] deaths/(cases x days ago). The coefficients of variance (CV = the ratio of the standard deviation to the mean) were applied to measure the relative variability for each CFR. A dashboard was developed for daily display of the CFR across each region. RESULTS: The Bayes based on (A)[D] has the lowest CV (=0.10) followed by the deaths/confirmed (=0.11) [A], deaths/(deaths + recoveries) (=0.42) [B], Bayes based on (C) (=0.49) [E], and deaths/(cases x days ago) (=0.59) [C]. All final CFRs will be equal using the formula (from, A to E). A dashboard was developed for the daily reporting of the CFR. The CFR (3.7%) greater than the prior CFR of 2.2% was evident in LSBHRS, increasing the CFR. A dashboard was created to present the CFRs on COVID-19. CONCLUSION: We suggest examining both trends of the Bayes based on both deaths/(cases 7 days ago) and deaths/confirmed cases as a reference to the final CFR. An app developed for displaying the provisional CFR with the 2 CFR trends can improve the underestimated CFR reported by WHO and media.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.059
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.952
Threshold uncertainty score0.949

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.059
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.612
GPT teacher head0.522
Teacher spread0.090 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations25
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicineSame topicCOVID-19 epidemiological studiesFrench-language works237,207