Brazilian model estimation for SARS-CoV-2 peak contagion (BMESPC)
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
With newer data for SARS-CoV-2 and entering the second wave of contagion required the improvement of the forecasting model, structuring its model to forecast the peak of the first and second contagion wave in Brazil. The Brazilian model estimation for SARS-CoV-2 peak contagion (BMESPC) was structured, capable of estimating the peak of contagion for SARS-CoV-2 in the first and second waves, as the main objective of this work. Using the BMESPC model, it was possible to estimate, with a certain reliability degree, the peak of contagion for the first and second waves in Brazil, with one day difference from the real to the forecast. While at the state level, the calculated confidence interval proved to be more accurate. In this way, it is possible to use BMESPC to forecast the peak of contagion for several regions, provided that the necessary structure and calibration are respected.
Article activity feed
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2021.01.02.20248940: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Table 2: Resources
No key resources detected.
Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).
Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.
Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar …
SciScore for 10.1101/2021.01.02.20248940: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Table 2: Resources
No key resources detected.
Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).
Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.
Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.
Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.
Results from rtransparent:- Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
- Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
- No protocol registration statement was detected.
-
