MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4283791987 · doi:10.1016/j.jtbi.2022.111210

Estimating the basic reproduction number from noisy daily data

2022· article· en· W4283791987 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Marie-Hélène Descary, Sorana Froda

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Theoretical Biology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicCOVID-19 epidemiological studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBasic reproduction numberInferenceComputer scienceEstimatorPoisson distributionPopulationRelevance (law)Transmissibility (structural dynamics)EconometricsMathematical optimizationStatisticsMathematicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we propose an easy to implement generalized linear models (GLM) methodology for estimating the basic reproduction number, R0, a major epidemic parameter for assessing the transmissibility of an infection. Our approach rests on well known qualitative properties of the classical SIR and SEIR systems for large populations. Moreover, we assume that information at the individual network level is not available. In inference we consider non homogeneous Poisson observation processes and mainly concentrate on epidemics that spread through a completely susceptible population. Further, we examine the performance of the estimator under various scenarios of relevance in practice, like partially observed data. We perform a detailed simulation study and illustrate our approach on Covid-19 Canadian data sets. Finally, we present extensions of our methodology and discuss its merits and practical limitations, in particular the challenges in estimating R0 when mitigation measures are applied.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.201
GPT teacher head0.439
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Theoretical BiologySame topicCOVID-19 epidemiological studiesFrench-language works237,207