Impact of adjustment for differential testing by age and sex on apparent epidemiology of SARS-CoV- 2 infection in Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Communicable disease surveillance typically relies on case counts for estimates of risk, and counts can be strongly influenced by testing rates. In the Canadian province of Ontario, testing rates varied markedly by age, sex, geography and time over the course of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. We applied a standardization-based approach to test-adjustment to better understand pandemic dynamics from 2020 to 2022, and to better understand when test-adjustment is necessary for accurate estimation of risk. Case counts were adjusted for under-testing using a previously published standardization-based approach that estimates case numbers that would have been expected if the entire population was tested at the same rate as most-tested age and sex groups. After adjustment for under-testing, estimated case counts increased threefold and test-adjusted cases correlated better with SARS-CoV-2-attributed death than crude reported cases. Test-adjusted epidemic curves suggested, in contrast to reported case counts, that the first two pandemic waves were equivalent in size, and identified three distinct pandemic waves in 2022, due to the emergence of Omicron variants. Under-reporting was greatest in younger individuals, with variation explained partly by testing rates and prevalence of multigenerational households; test-adjustment resulted in little change in the epidemic curve during time periods when per capita testing rates exceeded 5.5%. We conclude that standardization-based adjustment for differential testing by age and sex results in a different understanding of the epidemiology of SARS-CoV-2 in Ontario. This methodology may offer a means of deriving adjusted estimates of infection incidence from surveillance data, accounting for fluctuations due to changing test practices.
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 | 0.006 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".