MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4383346501 · doi:10.3390/engproc2023039051

Calculating the Effectiveness of COVID-19 Non-Pharmaceutical Interventions with Interrupted Time Series Analysis via Clustering-Based Counterfactual Country

2023· article· en· W4383346501 on OpenAlexaff
Fatemeh Navazi, Yufei Yuan, Norm Archer

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicCOVID-19 epidemiological studies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCounterfactual thinkingCluster analysisPandemicPsychological interventionBaseline (sea)Time seriesComputer scienceCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Set (abstract data type)Cluster (spacecraft)Interrupted time seriesEconometricsActuarial scienceMedicineBusinessEconomicsPolitical scienceDiseaseArtificial intelligencePsychologyMachine learningInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, governments only had access to non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) to mitigate the spread of the disease. Various methods have been discussed in the literature for calculating the effectiveness of NPIs. Among these methods, the interrupted time series analysis method is the area of our interest. To study the second wave, we clustered countries based on levels of implemented NPIs, except for the target NPI (X) whose effectiveness wanted to be evaluated. To do so, the COVID-19 Policy Response Tracker data-set gathered by the “Our World in Data” team of Oxford University, and COVID-19 statistical data gathered by the John Hopkins Hospital were used. After clustering, we selected a counterfactual country from the countries that were in the same cluster as the target country, and implemented NPI (X) at its lowest level. Thus, the target country and the counterfactual country were similar in implementation level of other NPIs and only differed in the implementation level of the target NPI (X). Therefore, we can calculate the effectiveness of NPI (X) without being concerned about the impurity of the effectiveness values that might be caused by other NPIs. This allowed us to calculate the effectiveness of NPI (X) using the interrupted time series analysis with the control group. Interrupted time series analysis assesses the effect of different policy-implementation levels by evaluating interruptions caused by policies in trend and level after the policy-implementation date. Before the NPI-implementation date, the implementation levels of NPIs were similar in both selected countries. After this date, the counterfactual country could be treated as a baseline for calculating changes in the trends and levels of COVID-19 cases in the target country. To demonstrate this approach, we used the generalized least square (GLS) method to estimate interrupted time series parameters related to the effectiveness of school closure (the target NPI) in Spain (the target country). The results show that increasing the implementation level of school closure caused a 34% decrease in COVID-19 prevalence in Spain after only 10 days compared to the counterfactual country.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.121
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.204
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.121
Threshold uncertainty score0.641

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1210.204
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.007
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.192
GPT teacher head0.468
Teacher spread0.277 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCOVID-19 epidemiological studies→French-language works237,207→