Sporadic SARS-CoV-2 cases at the neighbourhood level in Toronto, Ontario, 2020: a spatial analysis of the early pandemic period
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: As the largest city in Canada, Toronto has played an important role in the dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 transmission in Ontario, and the burden of disease across Toronto neighbourhoods has shown considerable heterogeneity. The purpose of this study was to investigate the spatial variation of sporadic SARS-CoV-2 cases in Toronto neighbourhoods by detecting clusters of increased risk and investigating effects of neighbourhood-level risk factors on rates. METHODS: Data on sporadic SARS-CoV-2 cases, at the neighbourhood level, for Jan. 25 to Nov. 26, 2020, were obtained from the City of Toronto COVID-19 dashboard. We used a flexibly shaped spatial scan to detect clusters of increased risk of sporadic COVID-19. We then used a generalized linear geostatistical model to investigate whether average household size, population density, dependency ratio and prevalence of low-income households were associated with sporadic SARS-CoV-2 rates. RESULTS: We identified 3 clusters of elevated risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection, with standardized morbidity ratios ranging from 1.59 to 2.43. The generalized linear geostatistical model found that average household size (relative risk [RR] 2.17, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.80-2.61) and percentage of low-income households (RR 1.03, 95% CI 1.02-1.04) were significant predictors of sporadic SARS-CoV-2 cases at the neighbourhood level. INTERPRETATION: During the study period, 3 clusters of increased risk of sporadic SARS-CoV-2 infection were identified, and average household size and percentage of low-income households were found to be associated with sporadic SARS-CoV-2 rates at the neighbourhood level. The findings of this study can be used to target resources and create policy to address inequities that are shown through heterogeneity of SARS-CoV-2 cases at the neighbourhood level in Toronto, Ontario.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".