ArticlePhilosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences2022
Tracking the national and regional COVID-19 epidemic status in the UK using weighted principal component analysis.
Article in Philosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impact of national-scale targeted point-of-care symptomatic lateral flow testing on trends in COVID-19 infections, hospitalisations and deaths during the second epidemic wave in Austria (REAP3).BMC public health · 2023Article
- Visualization for epidemiological modelling: challenges, solutions, reflections and recommendations.Philosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences · 2022Article
- Technical challenges of modelling real-life epidemics and examples of overcoming these.Philosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences · 2022Article
- Challenges in estimation, uncertainty quantification and elicitation for pandemic modelling.Epidemics · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
One of the difficulties in monitoring an ongoing pandemic is deciding on the metric that best describes its status when multiple intercorrelated measurements are available. Having a single measure, such as the effective reproduction number [Formula: see text], has been a simple and useful metric for tracking the epidemic and for imposing policy interventions to curb the increase when [Formula: see text]. While [Formula: see text] is easy to interpret in a fully susceptible population, it is more difficult to interpret for a population with heterogeneous prior immunity, e.g. from vaccination and prior infection. We propose an additional metric for tracking the UK epidemic that can capture the different spatial scales. These are the principal scores from a weighted principal component analysis. In this paper, we have used the methodology across the four UK nations and across the first two epidemic waves (January 2020-March 2021) to show that first principal score across nations and epidemic waves is a representative indicator of the state of the pandemic and is correlated with the trend in R. Hospitalizations are shown to be consistently representative; however, the precise dominant indicator, i.e. the principal loading(s) of the analysis, can vary geographically and across epidemic waves. This article is part of the theme issue 'Technical challenges of modelling real-life epidemics and examples of overcoming these'.
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.