MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4386477915 · doi:10.1038/s41598-023-41551-1

A new time-varying coefficient regression approach for analyzing infectious disease data

2023· article· en· W4386477915 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Juxin Liu, Brandon K. Bellows, X. Joan Hu, Zhou Zhou, Chris Soteros, Lin Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicCOVID-19 epidemiological studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoYork UniversityUniversity of New BrunswickSimon Fraser UniversityUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaGovernment of CanadaPublic Health Agency of Canada
KeywordsSegmented regressionRegression analysisPolynomial regressionRegressionLinear regressionTime seriesPiecewiseComputer scienceStatisticsCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)PolynomialLocal regressionMathematicsInfectious disease (medical specialty)MedicineDiseasePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since the beginning of the global pandemic of Coronavirus (SARS-COV-2), there has been many studies devoted to predicting the COVID-19 related deaths/hospitalizations. The aim of our work is to (1) explore the lagged dependence between the time series of case counts and the time series of death counts; and (2) utilize such a relationship for prediction. The proposed approach can also be applied to other infectious diseases or wherever dynamics in lagged dependence are of primary interest. Different from the previous studies, we focus on time-varying coefficient models to account for the evolution of the coronavirus. Using two different types of time-varying coefficient models, local polynomial regression models and piecewise linear regression models, we analyze the province-level data in Canada as well as country-level data using cumulative counts. We use out-of-sample prediction to evaluate the model performance. Based on our data analyses, both time-varying coefficient modeling strategies work well. Local polynomial regression models generally work better than piecewise linear regression models, especially when the pattern of the relationship between the two time series of counts gets more complicated (e.g., more segments are needed to portray the pattern). Our proposed methods can be easily and quickly implemented via existing R packages.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.258
GPT teacher head0.428
Teacher spread0.170 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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