-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 5
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Look for alternative distributions for LoS #49
Comments
@mert0248 not sure if you are happy looking into this, feel free to un-tag yourself if not |
Did a literature search and found these different estimates of LOS which might be useful: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.21.20038778v1 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/2761044 https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College-COVID19-symptom-progression-11-03-2020.pdf Zhang et al Yang et al |
Also possible to caculate LOS from deaths (uk data) but will be biased to more severe cases? |
@erees thanks I've been trying to collate results into a word doc an will share as a googledoc on slack. |
Which UK dataset? But yes will be biased if only deaths. |
The dataset available in covid19 automation. I think it is all reported uk deaths but has admission dates and death date. |
Pulling it back in here, but the wuhan empirical dataset suggests mean of 15-17 days: I'm inclined to believe that the studies coming from Wuhan are likely to be off, especially given the information intelligence report about data manipulation in China Bloomberg. The study for outside of Hubei seems (slightly) more promising, and it's possible that we could back out an empirical mean from the same dataset as I used above (which has Guangzhou cases: https://github.com/c2-d2/COVID-19-wuhan-guangzhou-data). If anyone aware of more datasets that include time series of hospitalizations, it's possible that one could fuse those datasets with the JHU CSSEGISandData data for deaths and recoveries (where countries have been reporting it). |
As of 8bae660 the app defaults to a custom distribution, with the 2 Zhou et al as other options. Further additions will be merely incremental, provided the distribution is already defined. Also see this issue, which will be relevant for creating new distributions from published info. |
Is there a reason that the coefficient of variation maxes out at 1? Having CV > 1 gives you distributions which have a mode at the far left extreme. Also how well do small CVs play with the mean-1 trick, particularly at small mean lengths of stay? |
With the spin-off of the length of stay review into a new paper (https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.30.20084780v1) can we close this |
Is mentioned elsewhere (#47) we should not rely on a single set of LoS distributions. It would be good to scan the literature for new distributions, select relevant ones, and add them to the app.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: