MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404258538 · doi:10.1016/j.epidem.2024.100801

Forecasting SARS-CoV-2 epidemic dynamic in Poland with the pDyn agent-based model

2024· article· en· W4404258538 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Karol Niedzielewski, Rafał Bartczuk, Natalia Bielczyk, Dominik Bogucki, Filip Dreger, Grzegorz Dudziuk, Łukasz Górski, Magdalena Gruziel-Słomka, Jędrzej Haman, Artur Kaczorek, Jan Kisielewski, Bartosz Krupa, Antoni Moszyński, Jedrzej Nowosielski, Maciej Radwan, Marcin Semeniuk, Urszula Tymoszuk, Jakub Zieliński, Franciszek Rakowski

Bibliographic record

VenueEpidemics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicCOVID-19 epidemiological studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInterdyscyplinarne Centrum Modelowania Matematycznego i Komputerowego UWInstitut de Cardiologie de MontréalMinisterstwo Edukacji i NaukiNuclear Decommissioning Authority
KeywordsPandemicCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)EconometricsDiseaseGeographyMedicineInfectious disease (medical specialty)MathematicsInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We employ pDyn (derived from “pandemics dynamics”), an agent-based epidemiological model, to forecast the fourth wave of the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic, primarily driven by the Delta variant, in Polish society. The model captures spatiotemporal dynamics of the epidemic spread, predicting disease-related states based on pathogen properties and behavioral factors. We assess pDyn’s validity, encompassing pathogen variant succession, immunization level, and the proportion of vaccinated among confirmed cases. We evaluate its predictive capacity for pandemic dynamics, including wave peak timing, magnitude, and duration for confirmed cases, hospitalizations, ICU admissions, and deaths, nationally and regionally in Poland. Validation involves comparing pDyn’s estimates with real-world data (excluding data used for calibration) to evaluate whether pDyn accurately reproduced the epidemic dynamics up to the simulation time. To assess the accuracy of pDyn’s predictions, we compared simulation results with real-world data acquired after the simulation date. The findings affirm pDyn’s accuracy in forecasting and enhancing our understanding of epidemic mechanisms. • The generative ABM pDyn incorporates extensive data for model validation. • The generative description of epidemic spread results in predictive performance. • pDyn enables detailed epidemic simulations at both national and regional levels. • ABMs should be validated by comparing internal variables with empirical data. • Monitoring local changes in epidemics is essential for model performance.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.068

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.330
GPT teacher head0.432
Teacher spread0.103 · 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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEpidemicsSame topicCOVID-19 epidemiological studiesFrench-language works237,207