Population-Based Model of the Fraction of Incidental COVID-19 Hospitalizations During the Omicron BA.1 Wave in the United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Some reports have suggested that as many as one-half of all hospital inpatients identified as COVID-19-positive during the Omicron BA.1 variant-driven wave were incidental cases admitted primarily for reasons other than their viral infections. To date, however, there are no prospective longitudinal studies of a representative panel of hospitals based on pre-established criteria for determining whether a patient was in fact admitted as a result of the disease. Materials and Methods To fill this gap, we developed a formula to estimate the fraction of incidental COVID-19 hospitalizations that relies upon measurable, population-based parameters. We applied our approach to a longitudinal panel of 164 counties throughout the United States, covering a 4-week interval ending in the first week of January 2022. Results Within this panel, we estimated that COVID-19 incidence was rising exponentially at a rate of 9.34% per day (95% CI, 8.93-9.87). Assuming that only one-quarter of all Omicron BA.1 infections had been reported by public authorities, we further estimated the aggregate prevalence of active SARS-CoV-2 infection during the first week of January to be 3.45%. During the same week, among 250 high-COVID-volume hospitals within our 164-county panel, an estimated 1 in 4 inpatients was COVID-positive. Based upon these estimates, we computed that 10.6% of such COVID-19-positive hospitalized patients were incidental infections. Across individual counties, the median fraction of incidental COVID-19 hospitalizations was 9.5%, with an interquartile range of 6.7 to 12.7%. Conclusion Incidental COVID-19 infections appear to have been a nontrivial fraction of all COVID-19-positive hospitalized patients during the Omicron BA.1 wave. In the aggregate, however, the burden of patients admitted for complications of their viral infections was far greater.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".