Predicting COVID-19 cases with unknown homogeneous or heterogeneous resistance to infectivity

  1. Ramalingam Shanmugam
  2. Gerald Ledlow
  3. Karan P. Singh

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

We present a restricted infection rate inverse binomial-based approach to better predict COVID-19 cases after a family gathering. The traditional inverse binomial (IB) model is inappropriate to match the reality of COVID-19, because the collected data contradicts the model’s requirement that variance should be larger than the expected value. Our version of an IB model is more appropriate, as it can accommodate all potential data scenarios in which the variance is smaller, equal, or larger than the mean. This is unlike the usual IB, which accommodates only the scenario in which the variance is more than the mean. Therefore, we propose a refined version of an IB model to be able to accommodate all potential data scenarios. The application of the approach is based on a restricted infectivity rate and methodology on COVID-19 data, which exhibit two clusters of infectivity. Cluster 1 has a smaller number of primary cases and exhibits larger variance than the expected cases with a negative correlation of 28%, implying that the number of secondary cases is lesser when the number of primary cases increases and vice versa. The traditional IB model is appropriate for Cluster 1. The probability of contracting COVID-19 is estimated to be 0.13 among the primary, but is 0.75 among the secondary in Cluster 1, with a wider gap. Cluster 2, with a larger number of primary cases, exhibits smaller variance than the expected cases with a correlation of 79%, implying that the number of primary and secondary cases do increase or decrease together. Cluster 2 disqualifies the traditional IB model and requires its refined version. The probability of contracting COVID-19 is estimated to be 0.74 among the primary, but is 0.72 among the secondary in Cluster 2, with a narrower gap. The advantages of the proposed approach include the model’s ability to estimate the community’s health system memory, as future policies might reduce COVID’s spread. In our approach, the current hazard level to be infected with COVID-19 and the odds of not contracting COVID-19 among the primary in comparison to the secondary groups are estimable and interpretable.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1371/journal.pone.0254313
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.12.21.423761: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board Statementnot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot 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.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2020.12.21.423761v1 on bioRxiv