اشترك بالحزمة الذهبية واحصل على وصول غير محدود شمرا أكاديميا
تسجيل مستخدم جديدAssaying Large-scale Testing Models to Interpret COVID-19 Case Numbers
122
0
0.0
(
0
)
اسأل ChatGPT حول البحث
ﻻ يوجد ملخص باللغة العربية
Large-scale testing is considered key to assess the state of the current COVID-19 pandemic. Yet, the link between the reported case numbers and the true state of the pandemic remains elusive. We develop mathematical models based on competing hypotheses regarding this link, thereby providing different prevalence estimates based on case numbers, and validate them by predicting SARS-CoV-2-attributed death rate trajectories. Assuming that individuals were tested based solely on a predefined risk of being infectious implies the absolute case numbers reflect the prevalence, but turned out to be a poor predictor, consistently overestimating growth rates at the beginning of two COVID-19 epidemic waves. In contrast, assuming that testing capacity is fully exploited performs better. This leads to using the percent-positive rate as a more robust indicator of epidemic dynamics, however we find it is subject to a saturation phenomenon that needs to be accounted for as the number of tests becomes larger.
قيم البحث
اقرأ أيضاً
We review epidemiological models for the propagation of the COVID-19 pandemic during the early months of the outbreak: from February to May 2020. The aim is to propose a methodological review that highlights the following characteristics: (i) the epi
demic propagation models, (ii) the modeling of intervention strategies, (iii) the models and estimation procedures of the epidemic parameters and (iv) the characteristics of the data used. We finally selected 80 articles from open access databases based on criteria such as the theoretical background, the reproducibility, the incorporation of interventions strategies, etc. It mainly resulted to phenomenological, compartmental and individual-level models. A digital companion including an online sheet, a Kibana interface and a markdown document is proposed. Finally, this work provides an opportunity to witness how the scientific community reacted to this unique situation.
The COVID-19 pandemic poses challenges for continuing economic activity while reducing health risks. While these challenges can be mitigated through testing, testing budget is often limited. Here we study how institutions, such as nursing homes, shou
ld utilize a fixed test budget for early detection of an outbreak. Using an extended network-SEIR model, we show that given a certain budget of tests, it is generally better to test smaller subgroups of the population frequently than to test larger groups but less frequently. The numerical results are consistent with an analytical expression we derive for the size of the outbreak at detection in an exponential spread model. Our work provides a simple guideline for institutions: distribute your total tests over several batches instead of using them all at once. We expect that in the appropriate scenarios, this easy-to-implement policy recommendation will lead to earlier detection and better mitigation of local COVID-19 outbreaks.
As the second wave in India mitigates, COVID-19 has now infected about 29 million patients countrywide, leading to more than 350 thousand people dead. As the infections surged, the strain on the medical infrastructure in the country became apparent.
While the country vaccinates its population, opening up the economy may lead to an increase in infection rates. In this scenario, it is essential to effectively utilize the limited hospital resources by an informed patient triaging system based on clinical parameters. Here, we present two interpretable machine learning models predicting the clinical outcomes, severity, and mortality, of the patients based on routine non-invasive surveillance of blood parameters from one of the largest cohorts of Indian patients at the day of admission. Patient severity and mortality prediction models achieved 86.3% and 88.06% accuracy, respectively, with an AUC-ROC of 0.91 and 0.92. We have integrated both the models in a user-friendly web app calculator, https://triage-COVID-19.herokuapp.com/, to showcase the potential deployment of such efforts at scale.
We analysed publicly available data on place of occurrence of COVID-19 deaths from national statistical agencies in the UK between March 9 2020 and February 28 2021. We introduce a modified Weibull model that describes the deaths due to COVID-19 at a
national and place of occurrence level. We observe similar trends in the UK where deaths due to COVID-19 first peak in Homes, followed by Hospitals and Care Homes 1-2 weeks later in the first and second waves. This is in line with the infectious period of the disease, indicating a possible transmission vehicle between the settings. Our results show that the first wave is characterised by fast growth and a slow reduction after the peak in deaths due to COVID-19. The second and third waves have the converse property, with slow growth and a rapid decrease from the peak. This difference may result from behavioural changes in the population (social distancing, masks, etc). Finally, we introduce a double logistic model to describe the dynamic proportion of COVID-19 deaths occurring in each setting. This analysis reveals that the proportion of COVID-19 deaths occurring in Care Homes increases from the start of the pandemic and past the peak in total number of COVID-19 deaths in the first wave. After the catastrophic impact in the first wave, the proportion of COVID-19 deaths occurring in Care Homes gradually decreased from is maximum after the first wave indicating residence were better protected in the second and third waves compared to the first.
Group testing allows saving chemical reagents, analysis time, and costs, by testing pools of samples instead of individual samples. We introduce a class of group testing protocols with small dilution, suited to operate even at high prevalence ($5%-10
%$), and maximizing the fraction of samples classified positive/negative within the first round of tests. Precisely, if the tested group has exactly one positive sample then the protocols identify it without further individual tests. The protocols also detect the presence of two or more positives in the group, in which case a second round could be applied to identify the positive individuals. With a prevalence of $5%$ and maximum dilution 6, with 100 tests we classify 242 individuals, $92%$ of them in one round and $8%$ requiring a second individual test. In comparison, the Dorfmans scheme can test 229 individuals with 100 tests, with a second round for $18.5%$ of the individuals.
سجل دخول لتتمكن من نشر تعليقات
التعليقات
جاري جلب التعليقات
سجل دخول لتتمكن من متابعة معايير البحث التي قمت باختيارها
