MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4205775673 · doi:10.31235/osf.io/gveaj

Global years of life lost to COVID-19

2020· preprint· en· W4205775673 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Adeline Lo, Enrique Acosta, Guillém López i Casasnovas, Héctor Pifarré i Arolas, Mikko Myrskylä, Tim Riffe, Catia Nicodemo

Bibliographic record

VenueSocArXiv (OSF Preprints) · 2020
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicCOVID-19 epidemiological studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsYears of potential life lostCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)DemographicsDemographyQuarter (Canadian coin)2019-20 coronavirus outbreakLife expectancyExcess mortalitySevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)PandemicGeographyMedicineMortality rateDiseasePopulationVirologyInfectious disease (medical specialty)SociologyOutbreak

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Understanding the mortality impact of COVID-19 requires not only counting the dead, but analyzing how premature the deaths are. We calculate years of life lost (YLL) across 42 countries due to COVID-19 attributable deaths, and also conduct an analysis based on estimated excess deaths. As of June 13th 2020, YLL in heavily affected countries are 2 to 6 times the average seasonal influenza; over two thirds of the YLL result from deaths in ages below 75 and one quarter from deaths below 55; and men have lost 47% more life years than women. The results confirm the large mortality impact of COVID-19 among the elderly. They also call for heightened awareness in devising policies that protect vulnerable demographics losing the largest number of life-years.

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)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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 head0.269
GPT teacher head0.429
Teacher spread0.160 · 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

Citations4
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSocArXiv (OSF Preprints)Same topicCOVID-19 epidemiological studiesFrench-language works237,207