SARS outbreaks in Ontario, Hong Kong and Singapore: the role of diagnosis and isolation as a control mechanism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article we use global and regional data from the SARS epidemic in conjunction with a model of susceptible, exposed, infective, diagnosed, and recovered classes of people (‘‘SEIJR’’) to extract average properties and rate constants for those populations. The model is fitted to data from the Ontario (Toronto) in Canada, Hong Kong in China and Singapore outbreaks and predictions are made based on various assumptions and observations, including the current effect of isolating individuals diagnosed with SARS. The epidemic dynamics for Hong Kong and Singapore appear to be different from the dynamics in Toronto, Ontario. Toronto shows a very rapid increase in the number of cases between March 31st and April 6th, followed by a significant slowing in the number of new cases. We explain this as the result of an increase in the diagnostic rate and in the effectiveness of patient isolation after March 26th. Our best estimates are consistent with SARS eventually being contained in Toronto, although the time of containment is sensitive to the parameters in our model. It is shown that despite the empirically modeled heterogeneity in transmission, SARS ’ average reproductive number is 1.2, a value quite similar to that computed for some strains of influenza (J. Math. Biol. 27 (1989) 233). Although it would not be surprising to see levels of SARS infection higher than 10 % in some regions of the world (if unchecked), lack of data and the observed heterogeneity and sensitivity of parameters prevent us from predicting the long-term impact of SARS. The possibility that 10 or more percent of the world population at risk could eventually be infected with the virus in conjunction with a mortality rate of 3–7 % or more, and indications of significant improvement in Toronto support the
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".