A novel IDEA: The impact of serial interval on a modified-Incidence Decay and Exponential Adjustment (m-IDEA) model for projections of daily COVID-19 cases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The SARS-CoV-2 virus causes the disease COVID-19, and has caused high morbidity and mortality worldwide. Empirical models are useful tools to predict future trends of disease progression such as COVID-19 over the near-term. A modified Incidence Decay and Exponential Adjustment (m-IDEA) model was developed to predict the progression of infectious disease outbreaks. The modification allows for the production of precise daily estimates, which are critical during a pandemic of this scale for planning purposes. The m-IDEA model was employed using a range of serial intervals given the lack of knowledge on the true serial interval of COVID-19. Both deterministic and stochastic approaches were applied. Model fitting was accomplished through minimizing the sum-of-square differences between predicted and observed daily incidence case counts, and performance was retrospectively assessed. The performance of the m-IDEA for projection cases in the near-term was improved using shorter serial intervals (1-4 days) at early stages of the pandemic, and longer serial intervals at mid- to late-stages (5-9 days) thus far. This, coupled with epidemiological reports, suggests that the serial interval of COVID-19 might increase as the pandemic progresses, which is rather intuitive: Increasing serial intervals can be attributed to gradual increases in public health interventions such as facility closures, public caution and social distancing, thus increasing the time between transmission events. In most cases, the stochastic approach captured the majority of future reported incidence data, because it accounts for the uncertainty around the serial interval of COVID-19. As such, it is the preferred approach for using the m-IDEA during dynamic situation such as in the midst of a major pandemic.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".