Back

Adjusting confirmed COVID-19 case counts for testing volume

Favero, N.

2020-06-28 epidemiology
10.1101/2020.06.26.20141135 medRxiv
Show abstract

When assessing the relative prevalence of the novel coronavirus (COVID-19), observers often point to the number of COVID-19 cases that have been confirmed through viral testing. However, comparisons based on confirmed case counts alone can be misleading since a higher case count may reflect either a higher disease prevalence or a better rate of disease detection. Using weekly records of viral test results for each state in the US, I demonstrate how confirmed case counts can be adjusted based on the percentage of COVID-19 tests that come back positive. A regression analysis indicates that case counts track better with future hospitalizations and deaths when employing this simple adjustment for testing coverage. Viral testing results can be used as a leading indicator of COVID-19 prevalence, but data reporting standards should be improved, and care should be taken to account for testing coverage when comparing confirmed case counts.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
● 5266 papers in training set
Top 10%
18.7%
Similar papers in this journal
2
American Journal of Epidemiology
◐ 67 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
9.0%
Similar papers in this journal
3
Epidemiology
○ 32 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.8%
Similar papers in this journal
4
Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness
◐ 16 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
5.5%
Similar papers in this journal
5
Epidemics
○ 116 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
5.5%
Similar papers in this journal
6
JMIR Public Health and Surveillance
◐ 45 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.9%
50% of probability mass above
7
Annals of Epidemiology
○ 21 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.1%
8
Annals of Internal Medicine
● 28 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.2%
9
Epidemiology and Infection
◐ 89 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
3.2%
10
PeerJ
◐ 308 papers in training set
Top 3%
2.5%
11
Frontiers in Public Health
○ 148 papers in training set
Top 3%
2.4%
12
PLOS Computational Biology
● 1863 papers in training set
Top 13%
2.1%
13
Scientific Reports
○ 3612 papers in training set
Top 56%
1.5%
14
Clinical Infectious Diseases
◐ 235 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.1%
15
eLife
● 5828 papers in training set
Top 58%
1.1%
16
BMC Public Health
○ 158 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.1%
17
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
● 2444 papers in training set
Top 34%
1.1%
18
Cureus
○ 68 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.1%
19
BMJ
● 51 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.1%
20
Public Health
○ 36 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.9%
21
Science Translational Medicine
● 127 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.8%
22
BMC Infectious Diseases
○ 133 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.6%
23
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
○ 128 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.6%
24
JAMA Network Open
● 130 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.6%
25
Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety
○ 18 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.6%
26
JAIDS Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes
○ 24 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.6%
27
Infectious Disease Modelling
○ 54 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.6%
28
Journal of Clinical Investigation
● 179 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.6%
29
Patterns
○ 78 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.6%

"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.