Back

Global between-countries variance in SARS-CoV-2 mortality is driven by reported prevalence, age distribution, and case detection rate

Babacic, H.; Lehtiö, J.; Pernemalm, M.

2020-06-02 epidemiology
10.1101/2020.05.28.20114934 medRxiv
Show abstract

ObjectiveTo explain the global between-countries variance in number of deaths per million citizens (nDpm) and case fatality rate (CFR) due to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. DesignSystematic analysis. Data sourcesWorldometer, European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, United Nations Main outcome measuresThe explanators of nDpm and CFR were mathematically hypothesised and tested on publicly-available data from 88 countries with linear regression models on May 1st 2020. The derived explanators - age-adjusted infection fatality rate (IFRadj) and case detection rate (CDR) - were estimated for each country based on a SARS-CoV-2 model of China. The accuracy and agreement of the models with observed data was assessed with R2 and Bland-Altman plots, respectively. Sensitivity analyses involved removal of outliers and testing the models at five retrospective and four prospective time points. ResultsGlobally, IFRadj estimates varied between countries, ranging from below 0.2% in the youngest nations, to above 1.3% in Portugal, Greece, Italy, and Japan. The median estimated global CDR of SARS-CoV-2 infections on April 16th 2020 was 12.9%, suggesting that most of the countries have a much higher number of cases than reported. At least 93% and up to 99% of the variance in nDpm was explained by reported prevalence expressed as cases per million citizens (nCpm), IFRadj, and CDR. IFRadj and CDR accounted for up to 97% of the variance in CFR, but this model was less reliable than the nDpm model, being sensitive to outliers (R2 as low as 67.5%). ConclusionsThe current differences in SARS-CoV-2 mortality between countries are driven mainly by reported prevalence of infections, age distribution, and CDR. The nDpm might be a more stable estimate than CFR in comparing mortality burden between countries.

Matching journals

The top 9 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.