Predictors of the Aggregate of COVID-19 Cases and Its Case-Fatality: A Global Investigation Involving 120 Countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Since the identification of COVID-19 in December 2019 as a pandemic, over 4500 research papers were published with the term “COVID-19” contained in its title. Many of these reports on the COVID-19 pandemic suggested that the coronavirus was associated with more serious chronic diseases and mortality particularly in patients with chronic diseases regardless of country and age. Therefore, there is a need to understand how common comorbidities and other factors are associated with the risk of death due to COVID-19 infection. Our investigation aims at exploring this relationship. Specifically, our analysis aimed to explore the relationship between the total number of COVID-19 cases and mortality associated with COVID-19 infection accounting for other risk factors. Methods: Due to the presence of over dispersion, the Negative Binomial Regression is used to model the aggregate number of COVID-19 cases. Case-fatality associated with this infection is modeled as an outcome variable using machine learning predictive multivariable regression. The data we used are the COVID-19 cases and associated deaths from the start of the pandemic up to December 02-2020, the day Pfizer was granted approval for their new COVID-19 vaccine. Results: Our analysis found significant regional variation in case fatality. Moreover, the aggregate number of cases had several risk factors including chronic kidney disease, population density and the percentage of gross domestic product spent on healthcare. The Conclusions: There are important regional variations in COVID-19 case fatality. We identified three factors to be significantly correlated with case fatality.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".