MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3144397724 · doi:10.1101/2021.03.27.21254471

Estimation of SARS-CoV-2 antibody prevalence through integration of serology and incidence data

2021· preprint· en· W3144397724 on OpenAlexaffabout
Liangliang Wang, Joosung Min, Renny Doig, Lloyd T. Elliott, Caroline Colijn

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2021
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicCOVID-19 epidemiological studies
Canadian institutionsActuaSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSerologyPandemicBayesian probabilityCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)StatisticsPrior probabilityEstimationSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)Statistical modelMixture modelProbabilistic logicSensitivity (control systems)Incidence (geometry)EconometricsMathematicsMedicineAntibodyImmunologyEngineeringInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Serology tests for SARS-CoV-2 provide a paradigm for estimating the number of individuals who have had infection in the past (including cases that are not detected by routine testing, which has varied over the course of the pandemic and between jurisdictions). Classical statistical approaches to such estimation do not incorporate case counts over time, and may be inaccurate due to uncertainty about the sensitivity and specificity of the serology test. In this work, we provide a joint Bayesian model for case counts and serological data, integrating uncertainty through priors on the sensitivity and specificity. We also model the Phases of the pandemic with exponential growth and decay. This model improves upon maximum likelihood estimates by conditioning on more data, and by taking into account the epidemiological trajectory. We apply our model to the greater Vancouver area, British Columbia, Canada with data acquired during Phase 1 of the pandemic.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.257
Threshold uncertainty score0.511

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.435
GPT teacher head0.509
Teacher spread0.073 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxiv→Same topicCOVID-19 epidemiological studies→French-language works237,207→