Back

Alternative epidemic indicators for COVID-19: a model-based assessment of COVID-19 mortality ascertainment in three settings with incomplete death registration systems

McCabe, R.; Whittaker, C.; Sheppard, R. J.; Abdelmagid, N.; Ahmed, A.; Alabdeen, I. Z.; Brazeau, N. F.; Abd Elhameed, A. E. A.; Bin-Ghouth, A. S.; Hamlet, A.; AbuKoura, R.; Barnsley, G.; Hay, J. A.; Alhaffar, M.; Besson, E. K.; Saje, S. M.; Sisay, B. G.; Gebreyesus, S. H.; Sikamo, A. P.; Worku, A.; Ahmed, Y. S.; Mariam, D. H.; Sisay, M. M.; Checchi, F.; Dahab, M.; Endris, B. S.; Ghani, A. C.; Walker, P. G. T.; Donnelly, C. A.; Watson, O. J.

2023-01-05 infectious diseases
10.1101/2023.01.04.22283691 medRxiv
Show abstract

Not all COVID-19 deaths are officially reported and, particularly in low-income and humanitarian settings the magnitude of such reporting gaps remain sparsely characterised. Alternative data sources, including burial site worker reports, satellite imagery of cemeteries and social-media-conducted surveys of infection, may offer solutions. By merging these data with independently conducted, representative serological studies within a mathematical modelling framework, we aim to better understand the range of under-reporting using the example of three major cities: Addis Ababa (Ethiopia), Aden (Yemen) and Khartoum (Sudan) during 2020. We estimate 69% - 100%, 0.8% - 8.0% and 3.0% - 6.0% of COVID-19 deaths were reported in these three settings, respectively. In future epidemics, and in settings where vital registrations systems are absent or limited, using multiple alternative data sources could provide critically-needed, improved estimates of epidemic impact. However, ultimately, functioning vital registration systems are needed to ensure that, in contrast to COVID-19, the impact of future pandemics or other drivers of mortality are reported and understood worldwide. One sentence summaryWe demonstrate the suitability of alternative data sources to assess the under-ascertainment of COVID-19 mortality.

Matching journals

The top 3 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.