Back

Estimation of the Ascertainment Bias in Covid Case Detection During the Omicron Wave

Elbanna, A.

2022-04-23 epidemiology
10.1101/2022.04.22.22274198 medRxiv
Show abstract

Covid cases in the general population have been historically underreported due to a variety of reasons including limited access to PCR testing at the start of the pandemic, lack of nation-wide surveillance testing, and discouraged testing unless symptomatic. Concerns about underreporting have increased during the Omicron surge due to the expanded use of at-home rapid tests which are not required to be officially reported. For the state of Illinois, we have found that reported cases constituted only 50%-70% of the actual cases during the pre-Omicron waves (August 2020-December 2021). During the first Omicron (BA1) wave, this fraction dropped to 20-29% (i.e., only 1 in 4 to 1 in 5 cases are reported). During the ongoing second Omicron (BA2) surge, this fraction has further decreased to 12-18% (i.e., only 1 in 6 to 1 in 8 cases are reported). These estimates have important implications on understanding the extent of the Omicron surge at the state and national levels.

Matching journals

The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
● 5266 papers in training set
Top 7%
22.5%
Similar papers in this journal
2
Epidemiology and Infection
◐ 89 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.3%
Similar papers in this journal
3
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
○ 128 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
5.6%
Similar papers in this journal
4
Frontiers in Public Health
○ 148 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
4.9%
Similar papers in this journal
5
BMJ Open
● 601 papers in training set
Top 6%
4.1%
6
JMIR Public Health and Surveillance
◐ 45 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.1%
Similar papers in this journal
7
Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness
◐ 16 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.1%
50% of probability mass above
8
Epidemiology
○ 32 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.1%
9
Annals of Epidemiology
○ 21 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.1%
10
Annals of Internal Medicine
● 28 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.5%
11
Scientific Reports
○ 3612 papers in training set
Top 40%
2.5%
12
PeerJ
◐ 308 papers in training set
Top 4%
2.1%
13
BMC Public Health
○ 158 papers in training set
Top 3%
2.1%
14
Epidemics
○ 116 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
2.1%
15
Computer Methods in Biomechanics and Biomedical Engineering
○ 10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.7%
16
Cureus
○ 68 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.4%
17
COVID
○ 14 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.1%
18
Public Health
○ 36 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.1%
19
International Journal of Infectious Diseases
○ 129 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.1%
20
Infectious Disease Modelling
○ 54 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.1%
21
JAMA Network Open
● 130 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.9%
22
JMIRx Med
◐ 32 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
23
Viruses
○ 332 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
24
Heliyon
○ 152 papers in training set
Top 8%
0.8%
25
Archives of Clinical and Biomedical Research
○ 28 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
26
PLOS Global Public Health
● 344 papers in training set
Top 8%
0.6%
27
JAMIA Open
◐ 42 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.6%
28
Emerging Infectious Diseases
● 105 papers in training set
Top 2%
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.