Estimating the generation interval and inferring the latent period of COVID-19 from the contact tracing data
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) emerged by end of 2019, and became a serious public health threat globally in less than half a year. The generation interval and latent period, though both are of importance in understanding the features of COVID-19 transmission, are difficult to observe, and thus they can rarely be learnt from surveillance data empirically. In this study, we develop a likelihood framework to estimate the generation interval and incubation period simultaneously by using the contact tracing data of COVID-19 cases, and infer the pre-symptomatic transmission proportion and latent period thereafter. We estimate the mean of incubation period at 6.8 days (95 %CI: 6.2, 7.5) and SD at 4.1 days (95 %CI: 3.7, 4.8), and the mean of generation interval at 6.7 days (95 %CI: 5.4, 7.6) and SD at 1.8 days (95 %CI: 0.3, 3.8). The basic reproduction number is estimated ranging from 1.9 to 3.6, and there are 49.8 % (95 %CI: 33.3, 71.5) of the secondary COVID-19 infections likely due to pre-symptomatic transmission. Using the best estimates of model parameters, we further infer the mean latent period at 3.3 days (95 %CI: 0.2, 7.9). Our findings highlight the importance of both isolation for symptomatic cases, and for the pre-symptomatic and asymptomatic cases.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.117 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it