Rapid review of COVID-19 epidemic estimation studies for Iran
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To inform researchers about the methodology and results of epidemic estimation studies performed for COVID-19 epidemic in Iran, we aimed to perform a rapid review. METHODS: We searched for and included published articles, preprint manuscripts and reports that estimated numbers of cumulative or daily deaths or cases of COVID-19 in Iran. We found 131 studies and included 29 of them. RESULTS: The included studies provided outputs for a total of 84 study-model/scenario combinations. Sixteen studies used 3-4 compartmental disease models. At the end of month two of the epidemic (2020-04-19), the lowest (and highest) values of predictions were 1,777 (388,951) for cumulative deaths, 20,588 (2,310,161) for cumulative cases, and at the end of month four (2020-06-20), were 3,590 (1,819,392) for cumulative deaths, and 144,305 (4,266,964) for cumulative cases. Highest estimates of cumulative deaths (and cases) for latest date available in 2020 were 418,834 on 2020-12-19 (and 41,475,792 on 2020-12-31). Model estimates predict an ominous course of epidemic progress in Iran. Increase in percent population using masks from the current situation to 95% might prevent 26,790 additional deaths (95% confidence interval 19,925-35,208) by the end of year 2020. CONCLUSIONS: Meticulousness and degree of details reported for disease modeling and statistical methods used in the included studies varied widely. Greater heterogeneity was observed regarding the results of predicted outcomes. Consideration of minimum and preferred reporting items in epidemic estimation studies might better inform future revisions of the available models and new models to be developed. Not accounting for under-reporting drives the models' results misleading.
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 | 0.024 | 0.087 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.024 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".