How should we present the epidemic curve for COVID-19?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Epidemic curves are used by decision makers and the public to infer the trajectory of the COVID-19 pandemic and to understand the appropriateness of current response measures. Symptom onset date is commonly used to date cases on the epidemic curve in public health reports and dashboards. However, third-party trackers often plot cases on the epidemic curve by the date they were publicly reported by the public health authority. These two curves create very different impressions of epidemic progression. On April 1, the epidemic curve for Ontario, Canada based on public reporting date showed an accelerating epidemic, whereas the curve based on a proxy variable for symptom onset date showed a rapidly declining epidemic. This illusory downward trend (the "ghost trend") is a feature of epidemic curves anchored using date variables earlier in time than the date a case was publicly reported, such as symptom onset date or sample collection date. This is because newly discovered cases are backdated, creating a perpetual downward trend in incidence due to incomplete data in the most recent days. Public reporting date is not subject to backdating bias and can be used to visualize real-time epidemic curves meant to inform the public and policy makers.
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 | 0.007 | 0.097 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.034 | 0.011 |
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".