MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3206422332 · doi:10.1038/s41467-021-25914-8

A cross-sectional analysis of meteorological factors and SARS-CoV-2 transmission in 409 cities across 26 countries

2021· article· en· W3206422332 on OpenAlexaff
Francesco Sera, Ben Armstrong, Sam Abbott, Sophie Meakin, Kathleen O’Reilly, Rosa von Borries, Rochelle Schneider, Dominic Royé, Masahiro Hashizume, Mathilde Pascal, Aurelio Tobı́as, Ana M. Vicedo‐Cabrera, Wenbiao Hu, Shilu Tong, Éric Lavigne, Patricia Matus Correa, Xia Meng, Haidong Kan, Jan Kynčl, Aleš Urban, Hans Orru, Niilo Ryti, Jouni J. K. Jaakkola, Simon Cauchemez, Marco Dallavalle, Alexandra Schneider, Ariana Zeka, Yasushi Honda, Chris Fook Sheng Ng, Barrak Alahmad, Shilpa Rao, Francesco Di Ruscio, Gabriel Carrasco‐Escobar, Xerxes Seposo, Iulian‐Horia Holobâcă, Ho Kim, Whanhee Lee, Carmen Íñiguez, Martina S. Ragettli, Alicia Alemán, Valentina Colistro, Michelle L. Bell, Antonella Zanobetti, Joel Schwartz, Trần Ngọc Đăng, Noah Scovronick, Micheline de Sousa Zanotti Stagliorio Coêlho, Magali Hurtado‐Díaz, Yuzhou Zhang, Timothy Russell, Mihály Koltai, Adam J. Kucharski, Rosanna C. Barnard, Matthew Quaife, Christopher I Jarvis, Jiayao Lei, James D Munday, Billy J. Quilty, Rosalind M. Eggo, Stefan Flasche, Anna M. Foss, Samuel Clifford, Damien C. Tully, W. John Edmunds, Petra Klepac, Oliver J. Brady, Fabienne Krauer, Simon R. Procter, Thibaut Jombart, Alicia Roselló, Alicia Showering, Sebastian Funk, Joel Hellewell, Fiona Yueqian Sun, Akira Endo, Jack Williams, Amy Gimma, Naomi R. Waterlow, Kiesha Prem, Nikos I Bosse, Hamish Gibbs, Katherine E. Atkins, Carl A. B. Pearson, Yalda Jafari, Christian Julián Villabona‐Arenas, Mark Jit, Emily Nightingale, Nicholas G. Davies, Kevin van Zandvoort, Yang Liu, Frank Sandmann, William Waites, Kaja Abbas, Graham F. Medley, Gwenan M. Knight, Antonio Gasparrini, Rachel Lowe

Bibliographic record

VenueNature Communications · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicCOVID-19 epidemiological studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaHealth Canada
FundersEuropean and Developing Countries Clinical Trials PartnershipNational Institute of Environmental Health SciencesNatural Environment Research CouncilMedical Research CouncilEuropean Centre for Medium-Range Weather ForecastsGlobal Challenges Research FundNational Research Foundation of KoreaScience and Technology Commission of Shanghai MunicipalityEconomic and Social Research CouncilEuropean CommissionSeoul National UniversityGrantová Agentura České RepublikyNational Research FoundationResearch Councils UKWellcome TrustXunta de GaliciaSight Research UKRoyal SocietyNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchBill and Melinda Gates Foundation
KeywordsSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)Cross-sectional studyCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Transmission (telecommunications)2019-20 coronavirus outbreakSars virusGeographyEnvironmental healthVirologyMedicineComputer scienceTelecommunicationsOutbreakDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract There is conflicting evidence on the influence of weather on COVID-19 transmission. Our aim is to estimate weather-dependent signatures in the early phase of the pandemic, while controlling for socio-economic factors and non-pharmaceutical interventions. We identify a modest non-linear association between mean temperature and the effective reproduction number (R e ) in 409 cities in 26 countries, with a decrease of 0.087 (95% CI: 0.025; 0.148) for a 10 °C increase. Early interventions have a greater effect on R e with a decrease of 0.285 (95% CI 0.223; 0.347) for a 5th - 95th percentile increase in the government response index. The variation in the effective reproduction number explained by government interventions is 6 times greater than for mean temperature. We find little evidence of meteorological conditions having influenced the early stages of local epidemics and conclude that population behaviour and government interventions are more important drivers of transmission.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.661

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.246
GPT teacher head0.490
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations94
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNature CommunicationsSame topicCOVID-19 epidemiological studiesFrench-language works237,207