MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4387125496 · doi:10.1101/2023.09.27.23296231

An extended catalytic model to assess changes in risk for multiple reinfections with SARS-CoV-2

2023· preprint· en· W4387125496 on OpenAlexaff
Belinda Lombard, Cheryl Cohen, Anne von Gottberg, Jonathan Dushoff, Cari van Schalkwyk, Juliet R.C. Pulliam

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2023
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicCOVID-19 epidemiological studies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersNational Research FoundationForeign, Commonwealth and Development OfficeDivision of Mathematical SciencesUniversiteit StellenboschDepartment of Science and Innovation, South AfricaCenter for High Performance ComputingWellcome Trust
KeywordsPandemicCredible intervalProjection (relational algebra)HazardSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)StatisticsPopulationRisk of infectionInfection riskMedicineBayesian probabilityHazard ratioEpidemic modelCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)VirologyMathematicsConfidence intervalInternal medicineBiologyIntensive care medicineAlgorithmEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has illustrated that monitoring trends in multiple infections can provide insight into the biological characteristics of new variants. Following several pandemic waves, many people have already been infected and reinfected by SARS-CoV-2 and therefore methods are needed to understand the risk of multiple reinfections. Objectives In this paper, we extended an existing catalytic model designed to detect increases in the risk of reinfection by SARS-CoV-2 to detect increases in the population-level risk of multiple reinfections. Methods The catalytic model assumes the risk of reinfection is proportional to observed infections and uses a Bayesian approach to fit model parameters to the number of n th infections among individuals whose ( n − 1) th infection was observed at least 90 days before. Using a posterior draw from the fitted model parameters, a 95% projection interval of daily n th infections is calculated under the assumption of a constant n th infection hazard coefficient. An additional model parameter was introduced to consider the increased risk of reinfection detected during the Omicron wave. Validation was performed to assess the model’s ability to detect increases in the risk of third infections. Key Findings The model parameters converged when applying the model’s fitting and projection procedure to the number of observed third SARS-COV-2 infections in South Africa. No additional increase in the risk of third infection was detected after the increase detected during the Omicron wave. The validation of the third infections method showed that the model can successfully detect increases in the risk of third infections under different scenarios. Limitations Even though the extended model is intended to detect the risk of n th infections, the method was only validated for detecting increases in the risk of third infections and not for four or more infections. The method is very sensitive to low numbers of n th infections, so it might not be usable in settings with small epidemics, low coverage of testing or early in an outbreak. Conclusions The catalytic model to detect increases in the risk of reinfections was successfully extended to detect increases in the risk of n th infections and could contribute to future detection of increases in the risk of n th infections by SARS-CoV-2 or other similar pathogens.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
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 head0.515
GPT teacher head0.480
Teacher spread0.035 · 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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