Heterogeneity in risk, testing and outcome of COVID-19 across outbreak settings in the Greater Toronto Area, Canada: an observational study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background We compared the risk of, testing for, and death following COVID-19 infection across three settings (long-term care homes (LTCH), shelters, the rest of the population) in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA), Canada. Methods We sourced person-level data from COVID-19 surveillance and reporting systems in Ontario, and examined settings with population-specific denominators (LTCH residents, shelters, and the rest of the population). We calculated cumulatively, the diagnosed cases per capita, proportion tested for COVID-19, daily and cumulative positivity, and case fatality proportion. We estimated the age- and sex-adjusted relative rate ratios for test positivity and case fatality using quasi-Poisson regression. Results Between 01/23/2020-05/25/2020, we observed a shift in the proportion of cases: from travel-related and into LTCH and shelters. Cumulatively, compared to the rest of the population, the number of diagnosed cases per 100,000 was 59-fold and 18-fold higher among LTCH and shelter residents, respectively. By 05/25/2020, 77.2% of LTCH residents compared to 2.4% of the rest of the population had been tested. After adjusting for age and sex, LTCH residents were 2.5 times (95% confidence interval (CI): 2.3-2.8) more likely to test positive. Case fatality was 26.3% (915/3485), 0.7% (3/402), and 3.6% (506/14133) among LTCH residents, shelter population, and others in the GTA, respectively. After adjusting for age and sex, case fatality was 1.4-fold (95%CI: 1.1-1.9) higher among LTCH residents than the rest of the population. Interpretation Heterogeneity across micro-epidemics among specific populations in specific settings may reflect underlying heterogeneity in transmission risks, necessitating setting-specific COVID-19 prevention and mitigation strategies.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".