Analysis of Country-Level Risk Factors of COVID-19 Mortality Across Countries of Asia: A Generalised Estimating Equation Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research aimed to investigate the death counts from coronavirus disease (COVID-19) across Asian countries by selecting 42 countries with a nonzero death count. Several studies have assessed personal-level factors that affect mortality rates in patients with COVID-19. However, the influence of country-level factors is still debatable. The results of a generalised estimating equation confirmed that the expected death counts across the countries in the middle quartile group of gross domestic product, upper quartile group of population density and lower quartile group of hospital bed count were higher than those in the countries in other quartile groups. The results further confirmed the positive association of the percentage of the population aged ≥65 years and time (day) with the death count. Visualisations and descriptive statistics showed that the death count increased over time across the Asian countries, with maximum death count occurring in the third quarter of the year 2020. These findings support the recommendation that countries with lower number of hospital beds per 1,000 persons, higher percentage of the population aged 65 years and older and middle and lower economies should take more precautions to reduce the death count from COVID-19.
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 | 0.014 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".