Weekly Nowcasting of New COVID-19 Cases Using Past Viral Load Measurements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The rapid spread of the coronavirus disease COVID-19 has imposed clinical and financial burdens on hospitals and governments attempting to provide patients with medical care and implement disease-controlling policies. The transmissibility of the disease was shown to be correlated with the patient's viral load, which can be measured during testing using the cycle threshold (Ct). Previous models have utilized Ct to forecast the trajectory of the spread, which can provide valuable information to better allocate resources and change policies. However, these models combined other variables specific to medical institutions or came in the form of compartmental models that rely on epidemiological assumptions, all of which could impose prediction uncertainties. In this study, we overcome these limitations using data-driven modeling that utilizes Ct and previous number of cases, two institution-independent variables. We collected three groups of patients (n = 6296, n = 3228, and n = 12,096) from different time periods to train, validate, and independently validate the models. We used three machine learning algorithms and three deep learning algorithms that can model the temporal dynamic behavior of the number of cases. The endpoint was 7-week forward number of cases, and the prediction was evaluated using mean square error (MSE). The sequence-to-sequence model showed the best prediction during validation (MSE = 0.025), while polynomial regression (OLS) and support vector machine regression (SVR) had better performance during independent validation (MSE = 0.1596, and MSE = 0.16754, respectively), which exhibited better generalizability of the latter. The OLS and SVR models were used on a dataset from an external institution and showed promise in predicting COVID-19 incidences across institutions. These models may support clinical and logistic decision-making after prospective validation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".