The performance of phenomenological models in providing near-term Canadian case projections in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic: March – April, 2020
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has had an unprecedented impact on citizens and health care systems globally. Valid near-term projections of cases are required to inform the escalation, maintenance and de-escalation of public health measures, and for short-term health care resource planning. METHODS: Near-term case and epidemic growth rate projections for Canada were estimated using three phenomenological models: the logistic model, Generalized Richard's model (GRM) and a modified Incidence Decay and Exponential Adjustment (m-IDEA) model. Throughout the COVID-19 epidemic in Canada, these models have been validated against official national epidemiological data on an ongoing basis. RESULTS: The best-fit models estimated that the number of COVID-19 cases predicted to be reported in Canada as of April 1, 2020 and May 1, 2020 would be 11,156 (90 % prediction interval: 9,156-13,905) and 54,745 (90 % prediction interval: 54,252-55,239). The three models varied in their projections and their performance over the first seven weeks of their implementation. Both the logistic model and GRM under-predicted cases reported a week following the projection date in nearly all instances. The logistic model performed best at the early stages, the m-IDEA model performed best at the later stages, and the GRM performed most consistently during the full period assessed. CONCLUSIONS: All three models have yielded qualitatively comparable near-term forecasts of cases and epidemic growth for Canada. Under or over-estimation of projected cases and epidemic growth by these models could be associated with changes in testing policies and/or public health measures. Simple forecasting models can be invaluable in projecting the changes in trajectory of subsequent waves of cases to provide timely information to support the pandemic response.
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 | 0.009 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".