Estimation of the COVID‐19 mean incubation time: Systematic review, meta‐analysis, and sensitivity analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Providing sensible estimates of the mean incubation time for COVID‐19 is important yet complex. This study aims to provide synthetic estimates of the mean incubation time of COVID‐19 by capitalizing on available estimates reported in the literature and exploring different ways to accommodate heterogeneity involved in the reported studies. Online databases between January 1, 2020 and May 20, 2021 are first searched to obtain estimates of the mean incubation time of COVID‐19, and meta‐analyses are then conducted to generate synthetic estimates. Heterogeneity of the studies is examined via the use of Cochran's statistic and Higgin's & Thompson's statistic, and subgroup analyses are conducted using mixed effects models. The publication bias issue is assessed using the funnel plot and Egger's test. Using all those reported mean incubation estimates for COVID‐19, the synthetic mean incubation time is estimated to be 6.43 days with a 95% confidence interval (CI) [5.90, 6.96], and using all those reported mean incubation estimates together with those transformed median incubation estimates, the estimated mean incubation time is 6.07 days with a 95% CI [5.70, 6.45]. The reported estimates of the mean incubation time of COVID‐19 vary considerably due to multiple reasons, including heterogeneity and publication bias. To alleviate these issues, we take different angles to provide a sensible estimate of the mean incubation time of COVID‐19. Our analyses show that the mean incubation time of COVID‐19 between January 1, 2020 and May 20, 2021 ranges from 5.68 to 8.30 days.
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 | 0.135 | 0.260 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.045 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 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".