Reliability of COVID-19 data: An evaluation and reflection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Importance The rapid proliferation of COVID-19 has left governments scrambling, and several data aggregators are now assisting in the reporting of county cases and deaths. The different variables affecting reporting (e.g., time delays in reporting) necessitates a well-documented reliability study examining the data methods and discussion of possible causes of differences between aggregators. Objective To statistically evaluate the reliability of COVID-19 across aggregators. Design, Setting, and Participants Cases and deaths were collected daily by volunteers via state and local health departments, as primary sources and newspaper reports, as secondary sources. In an effort to begin comparison for reliability statistical analysis, BroadStreet collected data from other COVID-19 aggregator sources, including USAFacts, Johns Hopkins University, New York Times, The COVID Tracking Project. Main Outcomes and Measures COVID-19 cases and death counts at the county and state levels. Results Lower levels of inter-rater agreement were observed across aggregators associated with the number of deaths, which manifested itself in state level Bayesian estimates of COVID-19 fatality rates. Conclusions and Relevance A national, publically available data set is needed for current and future disease outbreaks and improved reliability in reporting.
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 | 0.548 | 0.762 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".