MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3201213367 · doi:10.1073/pnas.2114054118

Asymptomatic infection is the pandemic’s dark matter

2021· letter· en· W3201213367 on OpenAlexafffund
David N. Fisman, Ashleigh R. Tuite

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · 2021
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicCOVID-19 epidemiological studies
Canadian institutionsPublic Health OntarioUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchGovernment of Canada
KeywordsAsymptomaticPandemicMedicineEpidemiologyAsymptomatic carrierPediatricsDiseaseCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Internal medicineInfectious disease (medical specialty)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Physicists who study the behavior of galaxies posit the existence of invisible dark matter, which has mass but cannot be seen.The behavior of galaxies cannot be explained without the existence of something we cannot see (1).In this sense, asymptomatic infection is the dark matter of the current severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic.Asymptomatic infection is difficult to observe and characterize, by definition, as asymptomatic individuals are not sickened, do not present for care, and cannot be identified without testing.Nonetheless, the frequency with which such infection occurs is key to understanding the epidemiology of the pandemic.In PNAS, Sah et al.(2) provide a rigorous systematic review and metaanalysis of what we know about asymptomatic infection to date.Their review includes 390 studies-a testimonial to the intensity with which this question has been studied.Their results are important: Notwithstanding the virulence of SARS-CoV-2 infection, true asymptomatic infection is common (35%), and asymptomatic infection a

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)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.068
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.089

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.068
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.231
GPT teacher head0.412
Teacher spread0.181 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations8
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the National Academy of SciencesSame topicCOVID-19 epidemiological studiesFrench-language works237,207