MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4324095596 · doi:10.1177/09720634221150866

Analysis of Country-Level Risk Factors of COVID-19 Mortality Across Countries of Asia: A Generalised Estimating Equation Approach

2023· article· en· W4324095596 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Nirajan Bam

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Health Management · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCOVID-19 and healthcare impacts
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuartileDemographyMedicineCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)PopulationQuarter (Canadian coin)Descriptive statisticsMortality rateDiseaseGeographyEnvironmental healthConfidence intervalStatisticsInfectious disease (medical specialty)Internal medicineMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.001
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 score0.107
Threshold uncertainty score0.952

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.263
GPT teacher head0.484
Teacher spread0.221 · 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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Health ManagementSame topicCOVID-19 and healthcare impactsFrench-language works237,207