MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4406019025 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0315476

A generalised catalytic model to assess changes in risk for multiple reinfections with SARS-CoV-2

2025· article· en· W4406019025 on OpenAlexaff
Belinda Lombard, Cheryl Cohen, Anne von Gottberg, Jonathan Dushoff, Juliet R.C. Pulliam, Cari van Schalkwyk

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2025
Typearticle
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
KeywordsCredible intervalStatisticsPandemicHazard ratioRisk of infectionInfection riskPopulationSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)MedicineCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Confidence intervalHazardBayesian probabilityBiologyMathematicsInternal medicineEnvironmental healthIntensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Monitoring trends in multiple infections with SARS-CoV-2, following several pandemic waves, provides insight into the biological characteristics of new variants, but also necessitates methods to understand the risk of multiple reinfections. OBJECTIVES: We generalised a catalytic model designed to detect increases in the risk of SARS-CoV-2 reinfection, to assess 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 nth infections among individuals that occur at least 90 days after a previous infection. Using a posterior draw from the fitted model parameters, a 95% projection interval of daily nth infections is calculated under the assumption of a constant nth infection hazard coefficient. An additional model parameter was incorporated for the increased reinfection risk detected during the Omicron wave. The generalised model's performance was then assessed using simulation-based validation. KEY FINDINGS: No additional increase in the risk of third infection was detected after the increase detected during the Omicron wave. Using simulation-based validation, we show that the model can successfully detect increases in the risk of third infections under different scenarios. LIMITATIONS: Even though the generalised model is intended to detect the risk of nth infections, it is validated specifically for third infections, with its applicability for four or more infections being unconfirmed. Furthermore, the method's sensitivity to low counts of nth infections, limits application in settings with small epidemics, limited testing coverage or early in an outbreak. CONCLUSIONS: The catalytic model was successfully adapted to detect increases in the risk of nth infections, enhancing our capacity to identify future changes in the risk of nth 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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.528
GPT teacher head0.429
Teacher spread0.099 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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