ArticleMedicine2022
Comparison of prediction accuracies between two mathematical models for the assessment of COVID-19 damage at the early stage and throughout 2020.
Article in Medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe negative impacts of COVID-19 (ImpactCOVID) on public health are commonly assessed using the cumulative numbers of confirmed cases (CNCCs). However, whether different mathematical models yield disparate results based on varying time frames remains unclear. This study aimed to compare the differences in prediction accuracy between 2 proposed COVID-19 models, develop an angle index that can be objectively used to evaluate ImpactCOVID, compare the differences in angle indexes across countries/regions worldwide, and examine the difference in determining the inflection point (IP) on the CNCCs between the 2 models.
methodsData were downloaded from the GitHub website. Two mathematical models were examined in 2 time-frame scenarios during the COVID-19 pandemic (the early 20-day stage and the entire year of 2020). Angle index was determined by the ratio (=CNCCs at IP÷IP days). The R2 model and mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) were used to evaluate the model's prediction accuracy in the 2 time-frame scenarios. Comparisons were made using 3 visualizations: line-chart plots, choropleth maps, and forest plots.
resultsExponential growth (EXPO) and item response theory (IRT) models had identical prediction power at the earlier outbreak stage. The IRT model had a higher model R2 and smaller MAPE than the EXPO model in 2020. Hubei Province in China had the highest angle index at the early stage, and India, California (US), and the United Kingdom had the highest angle indexes in 2020. The IRT model was superior to the EXPO model in determining the IP on an Ogive curve.
conclusionBoth proposed models can be used to measure ImpactCOVID. However, the IRT model (superior to EXPO in the long-term and Ogive-type data) is recommended for epidemiologists and policymakers to measure ImpactCOVID in the future.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.