Incubation-period estimates of Omicron (BA.1) variant from Taiwan, December 2021–January 2022, and its comparison to other SARS-CoV-2 variants: a statistical modeling, systematic search and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has seen several variants of concern, including the Omicron (BA.1) variant which emerged in October 2021. Accurately estimating the incubation period of these variants is crucial for predicting disease spread and formulating effective public health strategies. However, existing estimates often conflict because of biases arising from the dynamic nature of epidemic growth and selective inclusion of cases. This study aims to accurately estimate of the Omicron (BA.1) variant incubation period based on data from Taiwan, where disease incidence remained low and contact tracing was comprehensive during the first months of the Omicron outbreak. Methods We reviewed 100 contact-tracing records for cases of the Omicron BA.1 variant reported between December 2021 and January 2022, and found enough information to analyze 70 of these. The incubation period distribution was estimated by fitting data on exposure and symptom onset within a Bayesian mixture model using gamma, Weibull, and lognormal distributions as candidates. Additionally, a systematic literature search was conducted to accumulate data for estimates of the incubation period for Omicron (BA.1/2, BA.4/5) subvariants, which was then used for meta-analysis and comparison. Results The mean incubation period was estimated at 3.5 days (95% credible interval: 3.1–4.0 days), with no clear differences when stratified by vaccination status or age. This estimate aligns closely with the pooled mean of 3.4 days (3.0–3.8 days) obtained from a meta-analysis of other published studies on Omicron subvariants. Conclusions The relatively shorter incubation period of the Omicron variant, as compared to previous SARS-CoV2 variants, implies its potential for rapid spread but also opens the possibility for individuals to voluntarily adopt shorter, more resource-efficient quarantine periods. Continual updates to incubation period estimates, utilizing data from comprehensive contact tracing, are crucial for effectively guiding these voluntary actions and adjusting high socio-economic cost interventions.
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 | 0.015 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.026 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".