Incident COVID-19 infections before Omicron in the U.S
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The timing and magnitude of COVID-19 infections are of interest to the public and to public health, but these are challenging to ascertain due to the volume of undetected asymptomatic cases and reporting delays. Accurate estimates of COVID-19 infections based on finalized data can improve understanding of the pandemic and provide more meaningful quantification of disease patterns and burden. Therefore, we retrospectively estimate daily incident infections for each U.S. state prior to Omicron. To this end, reported COVID-19 cases are deconvolved to their date of infection onset using delay distributions estimated from the CDC line list. Then, a novel serology-driven model is used to scale these deconvolved cases to account for the unreported infections. The resulting infections incorporate variant-specific incubation periods, reinfections, and waning antigenic immunity. They clearly demonstrate that the reported cases fail to reflect the full extent of disease burden in all states. Most notably, infections were severely underreported during the Delta wave, with an estimated reporting rate as low as 6.3% in New Jersey, 7.3% in Maryland, and 8.4% in Nevada. Moreover, in 44 states, fewer than 1/3 of infections appear as cases reports. Therefore, while reported cases offer a convenient proxy of disease burden, they fail to capture the full extent of infections, and can severely underestimate the true disease burden. This retrospective analysis also estimates other important quantities for every state, including variant-specific deconvolved cases, time-varying case ascertainment ratios, and infection-hospitalization ratios.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".