MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4286001834 · doi:10.1038/s41598-022-16799-8

Dynamic causal modelling of COVID-19 and its mitigations

2022· article· en· W4286001834 on OpenAlexafffund
Karl Friston, Guillaume Flandin, Adeel Razi

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicCOVID-19 epidemiological studies
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institute for Advanced Research
FundersAustralian Research CouncilWellcome TrustCanadian Institute for Advanced Research
KeywordsComputer scienceBayes' theoremModel selectionBayesian probabilityCausal modelCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)EconometricsMachine learningBayes factorBayesian inferenceArtificial intelligenceData miningStatisticsMathematicsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This technical report describes the dynamic causal modelling of mitigated epidemiological outcomes during the COVID-9 coronavirus outbreak in 2020. Dynamic causal modelling is a form of complex system modelling, which uses 'real world' timeseries to estimate the parameters of an underlying state space model using variational Bayesian procedures. Its key contribution-in an epidemiological setting-is to embed conventional models within a larger model of sociobehavioural responses-in a way that allows for (relatively assumption-free) forecasting. One advantage of using variational Bayes is that one can progressively optimise the model via Bayesian model selection: generally, the most likely models become more expressive as more data becomes available. This report summarises the model (on 6-Nov-20), eight months after the inception of dynamic causal modelling for COVID-19. This model-and its subsequent updates-is used to provide nowcasts and forecasts of latent behavioural and epidemiological variables as an open science resource. The current report describes the underlying model structure and the rationale for the variational procedures that underwrite Bayesian model selection.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.716
Threshold uncertainty score0.711

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.255
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.155 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations21
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicCOVID-19 epidemiological studiesFrench-language works237,207