MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3184621084 · doi:10.1101/2021.07.23.21261039

Geographical concentration of COVID-19 cases by social determinants of health in 16 large metropolitan areas in Canada – a cross-sectional study

2021· preprint· en· W3184621084 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Yiqing Xia, Huiting Ma, Gary Moloney, Héctor Alexander Velásquez García, Monica Sirski, Naveed Z. Janjua, David Vickers, Tyler Williamson, Alan Katz, Kristy Yu, Rafal Kustra, David L. Buckeridge, Marc Brisson, Stefan Baral, Sharmistha Mishra, Mathieu Maheu‐Giroux

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2021
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicCOVID-19 epidemiological studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalUniversity of TorontoUniversity of ManitobaPublic Health OntarioBC Centre for Disease ControlUniversity of British ColumbiaMcGill UniversityUniversity of CalgarySt. Michael's Hospital
FundersMcGill University Health CentreCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchInstitut National de Santé Publique du QuébecMcGill University
KeywordsMetropolitan areaCensusGini coefficientGeographyPopulationEducational attainmentDemographyImmigrationSocial determinants of healthSocioeconomicsInequalityHealth careEconomic inequalityEconomic growthSociologyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background There is a growing recognition that strategies to reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission should be responsive to local transmission dynamics. Studies have revealed inequalities along social determinants of health, but little investigation was conducted surrounding geographic concentration within cities. We quantified social determinants of geographic concentration of COVID-19 cases across sixteen census metropolitan areas (CMA) in four Canadian provinces. Methods We used surveillance data on confirmed COVID-19 cases at the level of dissemination area. Gini (co-Gini) coefficients were calculated by CMA based on the proportion of the population in ranks of diagnosed cases and each social determinant using census data (income, education, visible minority, recent immigration, suitable housing, and essential workers) and the corresponding share of cases. Heterogeneity was visualized using Lorenz (concentration) curves. Results Geographic concentration was observed in all CMAs (half of the cumulative cases were concentrated among 21-35% of each city’s population): with the greatest geographic heterogeneity in Ontario CMAs (Gini coefficients, 0.32-0.47), followed by British Columbia (0.23-0.36), Manitoba (0.32), and Québec (0.28-0.37). Cases were disproportionately concentrated in areas with lower income, education attainment, and suitable housing; and higher proportion of visible minorities, recent immigrants, and essential workers. Although a consistent feature across CMAs was concentration by proportion visible minorities, the magnitude of concentration by social determinants varied across CMAs. Interpretation The feature of geographical concentration of COVID-19 cases was consistent across CMAs, but the pattern by social determinants varied. Geographically-prioritized allocation of resources and services should be tailored to the local drivers of inequalities in transmission in response to SARS-CoV-2’s resurgence.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.231

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.007
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
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 head0.205
GPT teacher head0.464
Teacher spread0.259 · 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

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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