MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4293216870 · doi:10.1016/j.dsm.2022.08.004

Assessing spread risk of COVID-19 in early 2020

2022· article· en· W4293216870 on OpenAlexaff
Shengjie Lai, Isaac I. Bogoch, Nick Ruktanonchai, Alexander Watts, Xin Lü, Weizhong Yang, Hongjie Yu, Kamran Khan, Andrew J. Tatem

Bibliographic record

VenueData Science and Management · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicCOVID-19 epidemiological studies
Canadian institutionsBlueDot (Canada)St. Michael's HospitalUniversity of Toronto
FundersProgram of Shanghai Academic Research LeaderHorizon 2020National Natural Science Foundation of ChinaNational Major Science and Technology Projects of ChinaUniversity of SouthamptonDepartment for International DevelopmentBaiduWellcome TrustNational Institutes of HealthDepartment for International Development, UK GovernmentEuropean CommissionBill and Melinda Gates Foundation
KeywordsPreparednessPandemicOutbreakMegacityPublic healthCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)GeographyTransmission (telecommunications)ChinaDemographyPopulationEnvironmental healthInfectious disease (medical specialty)DiseaseMedicinePolitical scienceVirologyTelecommunicationsEngineeringEconomicsEconomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A novel coronavirus emerged in late 2019, named as the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) by the World Health Organization (WHO). This study was originally conducted in January 2020 to estimate the potential risk and geographic range of COVID-19 spread at the early stage of the transmission. A series of connectivity and risk analyses based on domestic and international travel networks were conducted using historical aggregated mobile phone data and air passenger itinerary data. We found that the cordon sanitaire of the primary city was likely to have occurred during the latter stages of peak population numbers leaving the city, with travellers departing into neighbouring cities and other megacities in China. We estimated that there were 59,912 international air passengers, of which 834 (95% uncertainty interval: 478–1,349) had COVID-19 infection, with a strong correlation seen between the predicted risks of importation and the number of imported cases found. Given the limited understanding of emerging infectious diseases in the very early stages of outbreaks, our approaches and findings in assessing travel patterns and risk of transmission can help guide public health preparedness and intervention design for new COVID-19 waves caused by variants of concern and future pandemics to effectively limit transmission beyond its initial extent.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.165
Threshold uncertainty score0.676

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.005
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 head0.385
GPT teacher head0.483
Teacher spread0.098 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations22
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueData Science and ManagementSame topicCOVID-19 epidemiological studiesFrench-language works237,207