MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407289658 · doi:10.24018/ejmed.2025.7.1.2245

Factors Explaining Japan’s Low COVID-19 Mortality: Comparison with Rich and Democratic Countries

2025· article· en· W4407289658 on OpenAlexaffabout
Zameer Shervani, Aamir Akbar Khan, Intazam Khan, S. Ansari, Deepali Bhardwaj, Diwakar Madan Kumar

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Medical and Health Sciences · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGlobal Health Care Issues
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Democracy2019-20 coronavirus outbreakSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)Development economicsPolitical scienceGeographyEconomicsVirologyMedicineOutbreakPoliticsInternal medicineLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) caused a large number of deaths during the COVID-19 pandemic. The pandemic had a greater impact on wealthy and developed countries. Considering the per capita deaths and fatality-to-case ratio, also known as the case fatality ratio (CFR), Japan was among the least affected countries. The CFR of Japan was compared with nine other democratic and wealthy countries: the US, Italy, Spain, France, Austria, Germany, Canada, Australia, and South Korea. Japan’s CFR was the second lowest at 0.2%, only behind South Korea with 0.1%. The highest rates were recorded by the US and Canada, each at 1.1%. The per capita (per 100,000 people) fatality rate of Japan was 57.72 deaths, whereas the US had six times more deaths compared to Japan. We calculated the mortality (fatality) rates based on the cumulative deaths as of March 16, 2023, when the pandemic was mostly over. The amount of GDP spent on healthcare in Japan, mask awareness, the stringency index (SI), vaccinations, urbanization, life expectancy (LE), and the age cohorts of the population were examined to determine the factors that resulted in a low mortality rate in Japan during the pandemic.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.081
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.195
GPT teacher head0.515
Teacher spread0.320 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Medical and Health SciencesSame topicGlobal Health Care IssuesFrench-language works237,207