Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37851681›Full record

ArticlePloS one2023

A fairness assessment of mobility-based COVID-19 case prediction models.

Abdolmajid Erfani, Vanessa Frias-Martinez

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Abdolmajid ErfaniDepartment of Civil, Environmental, and Geospatial Engineering, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-4703-1248
Vanessa Frias-MartinezCollege of Information Studies, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In light of the outbreak of COVID-19, analyzing and measuring human mobility has become increasingly important. A wide range of studies have explored spatiotemporal trends over time, examined associations with other variables, evaluated non-pharmacologic interventions (NPIs), and predicted or simulated COVID-19 spread using mobility data. Despite the benefits of publicly available mobility data, a key question remains unanswered: are models using mobility data performing equitably across demographic groups? We hypothesize that bias in the mobility data used to train the predictive models might lead to unfairly less accurate predictions for certain demographic groups. To test our hypothesis, we applied two mobility-based COVID infection prediction models at the county level in the United States using SafeGraph data, and correlated model performance with sociodemographic traits. Findings revealed that there is a systematic bias in models' performance toward certain demographic characteristics. Specifically, the models tend to favor large, highly educated, wealthy, young, and urban counties. We hypothesize that the mobility data currently used by many predictive models tends to capture less information about older, poorer, less educated and people from rural regions, which in turn negatively impacts the accuracy of the COVID-19 prediction in these areas. Ultimately, this study points to the need of improved data collection and sampling approaches that allow for an accurate representation of the mobility patterns across demographic groups.

Indexed as

COVID-19BiasDisease OutbreaksHumansSpecimen HandlingUnited States

Identifiers

PMID37851681
PMCPMC10584164

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.