MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4378840779 · doi:10.54254/2753-8818/4/20220561

Predicting COVID-19 Induced Mortality Utilizing Vaccination Status Data

2023· article· en· W4378840779 on OpenAlexaff
Xiaoxuan Chen, Zhiqi Tang

Bibliographic record

VenueTheoretical and Natural Science · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicCOVID-19 Pandemic Impacts
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoisson regressionCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Lasso (programming language)Random forestStatisticsPoisson distributionRandom effects modelRegressionRegression analysisLinear regressionSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)2019-20 coronavirus outbreakVaccinationComputer scienceMedicineMathematicsOutbreakArtificial intelligenceVirologyDiseaseEnvironmental healthInternal medicinePopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

COVID-19 is a prevalent pandemic that has caused of millions of mortalities. While medical and statistical research have proven the effectiveness of COVID vaccines to reduce mortality rate in specific areas. This study aims to explore the quantitative effect of vaccine in preventing in the global level. Mortality and vaccine data was acquired from Kaggle, which summarized related data from various sources. Multiple linear regression, quasi-Poisson regression, LASSO regression, and random forest are applied to the model to analyze and predict the effect of vaccine on mortality. The adjusted R square value of these four models is 0.6670, 0.6863, 0.4901, and 0.7152 respectively. The residual boxplots of all four models show that LASSO model sometimes make extremely inaccurate predictions, and the random forest model is the most accurate model, which matches the comparison result of the adjusted R square values. Therefore, the random forest model can be potentially used to predict future COVID-related deaths based on vaccine-related data.

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)0.010
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
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 score0.530
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.122
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.242 · 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.

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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTheoretical and Natural ScienceSame topicCOVID-19 Pandemic ImpactsFrench-language works237,207