MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3092297236 · doi:10.4103/ijpvm.ijpvm_86_20

International Globalization and Spreading of Novel Coronavirus 2019 Infection: How Far and Fast? A Medical Logistics Assessment

2020· article· en· W3092297236 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Won Sriwijitalai, Viroj Wiwanitkit

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Preventive Medicine · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGlobal Health Care Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)GlobalizationCoronavirusSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)2019-20 coronavirus outbreakMedicineVirologyFar EastBusinessGeographyPolitical scienceInternal medicineOutbreakDiseaseInfectious disease (medical specialty)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dear Editor, Novel coronavirus 2019 infection, officially known as COVID-19, is a new emerging disease first reported from China.[1] It is caused by a new virus, namely, SARS-CoV-2. Till now, the identity of the first patient with the disease or patient zero is still unknown but it is believed to be one from China. Understanding patient zero is difficult but useful for an illustration of geographical spread of the disease. From China, coronavirus infection has spread to several countries, starting from Thailand, and has become an important public health concern globally.[2] The migration of the disease by international communication has become an important consideration. After importation of the disease, it can further spread internally in the destination country[3] and there is also a possibility that the disease can further spread to the other countries.[4] The disease trail is complex and this is linked to the chance that the worldwide pandemic can occur. The medical logistics assessment is a useful tool to track the disease transfer trails. Based on the logistics assessment, the information on disease migration pattern (both time and place dimensions) can be better understood. Here, the authors perform a medical logistics analysis to track the international trails of the disease. The basic online tool, namely, DistanceFromTo (https://www.distancefromto.net/), is used for computational analysis. Until February 25, 2020, several countries around the world including China, Japan, Singapore, Vietnam, Thailand, USA, France, United Kingdom, South Korea, Malaysia, Russia, Australia, Germany, UAE, India, Italy, Canada, the Philippines, Spain, Finland, Cambodia, Israel, Iran, Kuwait, Oman, Bahrain, Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Sweden, Belgium, Sri Lanka, and Nepal have patients related to this disease. Focusing on the disease transfer trails, there are 24 international disease transfer paths. In the present study, the authors exclude the paths that are the non-first-step continuous transfer and transfer via international marine route. Based on the analysis, the average travel distance of international transfer is 5245.76 + 2734.90 km and the average required travel time of international transfer is 7.37 + 3.73 h. Based on these data, the disease has a high possibility for international transfer worldwide. The super-spreading of the disease due to globalization can be expected. Financial support and sponsorship Nil. Conflicts of interest There are no conflicts of interest.

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)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.734
Threshold uncertainty score0.555

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.104
GPT teacher head0.505
Teacher spread0.401 · 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.

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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Preventive MedicineSame topicGlobal Health Care IssuesFrench-language works237,207