MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3036793583 · doi:10.1016/j.ijid.2020.06.058

Spatial modeling, risk mapping, change detection, and outbreak trend analysis of coronavirus (COVID-19) in Iran (days between February 19 and June 14, 2020)

2020· article· en· W3036793583 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Hamid Reza Pourghasemi, Soheila Pouyan, Bahram Heidari, Zakariya Farajzadeh, Seyed Rashid Fallah Shamsi, Sedigheh Babaei, Rasoul Khosravi, Mohammad Etemadi, Gholamabbas Ghanbarian, Ahmad Farhadi, Roja Safaeian, Zahra Heidari, Mohammad Hassan Tarazkar, John P. Tiefenbacher, Amir Azmi, Faezeh Sadeghian

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Infectious Diseases · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicCOVID-19 epidemiological studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersIran National Science FoundationNational Science Foundation
KeywordsCase fatality rateOutbreakCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)GeographyPandemicDemographyChinaEnvironmental healthMedicineCartographyDiseaseInfectious disease (medical specialty)VirologyPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) represents a major pandemic threat that has spread to more than 212 countries with more than 432,902 recorded deaths and 7,898,442 confirmed cases worldwide so far (on June 14, 2020). It is crucial to investigate the spatial drivers to prevent and control the epidemic of COVID-19. METHODS: This is the first comprehensive study of COVID-19 in Iran; and it carries out spatial modeling, risk mapping, change detection, and outbreak trend analysis of the disease spread. Four main steps were taken: comparison of Iranian coronavirus data with the global trends, prediction of mortality trends using regression modeling, spatial modeling, risk mapping, and change detection using the random forest (RF) machine learning technique (MLT), and validation of the modeled risk map. RESULTS: The results show that from February 19 to June 14, 2020, the average growth rates (GR) of COVID-19 deaths and the total number of COVID-19 cases in Iran were 1.08 and 1.10, respectively. Based on the World Health Organisation (WHO) data, Iran's fatality rate (deaths/0.1M pop) is 10.53. Other countries' fatality rates were, for comparison, Belgium - 83.32, UK - 61.39, Spain - 58.04, Italy - 56.73, Sweden - 48.28, France - 45.04, USA - 35.52, Canada - 21.49, Brazil - 20.10, Peru - 19.70, Chile - 16.20, Mexico- 12.80, and Germany - 10.58. The fatality rate for China is 0.32 (deaths/0.1M pop). Over time, the heatmap of the infected areas identified two critical time intervals for the COVID-19 outbreak in Iran. The provinces were classified in terms of disease and death rates into a large primary group and three provinces that had critical outbreaks were separate from the others. The heatmap of countries of the world shows that China and Italy were distinguished from other countries in terms of nine viral infection-related parameters. The regression models for death cases showed an increasing trend but with some evidence of turning. A polynomial relationship was identified between the coronavirus infection rate and the province population density. Also, a third-degree polynomial regression model for deaths showed an increasing trend recently, indicating that subsequent measures taken to cope with the outbreak have been insufficient and ineffective. The general trend of deaths in Iran is similar to the world's, but Iran's shows lower volatility. Change detection of COVID-19 risk maps with a random forest model for the period from March 11 to March 18 showed an increasing trend of COVID-19 in Iran's provinces. It is worth noting that using the LASSO MLT to evaluate variables' importance, indicated that the most important variables were the distance from bus stations, bakeries, hospitals, mosques, ATMs (automated teller machines), banks, and the minimum temperature of the coldest month. CONCLUSIONS: We believe that this study's risk maps are the primary, fundamental step to take for managing and controlling COVID-19 in Iran and its provinces.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.220
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.188 · 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 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

Citations126
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Infectious DiseasesSame topicCOVID-19 epidemiological studiesFrench-language works237,207