MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3087208335 · doi:10.1101/2020.09.15.20193862

COVID-19 Case Age Distribution: Correction for Differential Testing by Age

2020· preprint· en· W3087208335 on OpenAlexaffabout
David N. Fisman, Amy L. Greer, Michael Hillmer, Sheila F. O’Brien, Steven J. Drews, Ashleigh R. Tuite

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2020
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCOVID-19 Clinical Research Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of GuelphCanadian Blood ServicesPublic Health OntarioUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIncidence (geometry)DemographyMedicinePandemicPopulationLinear regressionRegression analysisNegative binomial distributionPublic healthDiseaseStatisticsCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Environmental healthInternal medicinePathologyMathematicsInfectious disease (medical specialty)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background SARS-CoV-2 is a novel pathogen and is currently the cause of a global pandemic. Despite expected universal susceptibility to a novel pathogen, the pandemic to date has been characterized by higher observed incidence in the oldest individuals and lower incidence in children and adolescents. Differential testing by age group may explain some of these observed differences, but datasets linking case counts to public health testing volumes are uncommon. Methods We used data from Ontario, Canada. Case data were obtained from Ontario’s provincial line, while testing data were obtained from an information system with complete SARS-CoV-2 testing data for public, hospital, and private laboratories. Demographic and temporal patterns in reported case incidence, testing rates, and test positivity were explored using negative binomial regression models. Standardized morbidity and testing ratios (SMR, STR), and standardized test positivity (STP) were calculated by dividing age- and sex-specific rates by overall rates; demographic and temporal patterns in standardized ratios were explored using meta-regression. Testing adjusted SMR were estimated using linear regression models. Results Observed disease incidence and testing rates were highest in oldest individuals and markedly lower in those aged < 20. Temporal trends in disease incidence and testing were observed, but standardizing morbidity and testing ratios eliminated temporal trends (i.e., relative patterns by age and sex remained identical regardless of epidemic phase). After adjustment for testing frequency, SMR were lowest in children and adults aged 70 and older, approximately the same in adolescents as in the population as a whole and elevated in young adults (aged 20-29 years), providing a markedly different picture of the epidemic than seen with crude SMR or case-based incidence. Test-adjusted SMR were validated using seroprevalence data (Pearson correlation coefficient 0.82, P = 0.04). Conclusions Surveillance for SARS-CoV-2 infection is typically performed using only test-positive case data, without adjustment for testing frequency. Older adults are tested more frequently, likely due to increased disease severity, while children are under-tested. Adjustment for testing frequency results in a very different picture of SARS-CoV-2 infection risk by age, one that is consistent with estimates obtained through serological testing.

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)0.265
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.580
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.265
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.166
GPT teacher head0.452
Teacher spread0.286 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations19
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxivSame topicCOVID-19 Clinical Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207