MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3031074567 · doi:10.1101/2020.05.29.20109090

Determinants of self-reported symptoms and testing for COVID in Canada using a nationally representative survey

2020· preprint· en· W3031074567 on OpenAlexaffabout
Daphne Wu, Prabhat Jha, Teresa Lam, Patrick Brown, Hellen Gelband, Nico Nagelkerke, H.C. Birnboim, Angus Reid

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2020
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLong-Term Effects of COVID-19
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoCentre for Global Health ResearchSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPandemicCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)MedicineIndigenousSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)Dry coughDemographyGerontologyEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In April 2020, the first-ever nationally representative survey in Canada polled 4,240 adults age 18 years and older about their COVID experience in March, early in the epidemic. We examined determinants of COVID symptoms, defined as fever plus difficulty breathing/shortness of breath, dry cough so severe that it disrupts sleep, and/or loss of sense of smell; and testing for SARS-CoV-2 by respondents and/or household members. About 8% of Canadians reported that they and/or one or more household members experienced COVID symptoms. Symptoms were more common in younger than older adults, and among visible minorities. Overall, only 3% of respondents and/or household members reported testing for SARS-CoV-2. Being tested was associated with having COVID symptoms, Indigenous identity, and living in Quebec. Periodic nationally representative surveys—including high-risk older populations—of symptoms, as well as SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, are required in many countries to understand the pandemic and prepare for the future.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.086

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.289 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations3
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxivSame topicLong-Term Effects of COVID-19French-language works237,207