scholarly journals Testing bias in professional forecasts

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philip Hans Franses
Keyword(s):  
Author(s):  
Kevin L. Schwartz ◽  
Camille Achonu ◽  
Sarah A. Buchan ◽  
Kevin A. Brown ◽  
Brenda Lee ◽  
...  

AbstractImportanceProtecting healthcare workers (HCWs) from COVID-19 is a priority to maintain a safe and functioning healthcare system. The risk of transmitting COVID-19 to family members is a source of stress for many.ObjectiveTo describe and compare HCW and non-HCW COVID-19 cases in Ontario, Canada, as well as the frequency of COVID-19 among HCWs’ household members.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsUsing reportable disease data at Public Health Ontario which captures all COVID-19 cases in Ontario, Canada, we conducted a population-based cross-sectional study comparing demographic, exposure, and clinical variables between HCWs and non-HCWs with COVID-19 as of 14 May 2020. We calculated rates of infections over time and determined the frequency of within household transmissions using natural language processing based on residential address.Exposures and OutcomesWe contrasted age, gender, comorbidities, clinical presentation (including asymptomatic and presymptomatic), exposure histories including nosocomial transmission, and clinical outcomes between HCWs and non-HCWs with confirmed COVID-19.ResultsThere were 4,230 (17.5%) HCW COVID-19 cases in Ontario, of whom 20.2% were nurses, 2.3% were physicians, and the remaining 77.4% other specialties. HCWs were more likely to be between 30-60 years of age and female. HCWs were more likely to present asymptomatically (8.1% versus 7.0%, p=0.010) or with atypical symptoms (17.8% versus 10.5%, p<0.001). The mortality among HCWs was 0.2% compared to 10.5% of non-HCWs. HCWs commonly had exposures to a confirmed case or outbreak (74.1%), however only 3.1% were confirmed to be nosocomial. The rate of new infections was 5.5 times higher in HCWs than non-HCWs, but mirrored the epidemic curve. We identified 391 (9.8%) probable secondary household transmissions and 143 (3.6%) acquisitions. Children < 19 years comprised 14.6% of secondary cases compared to only 4.2% of the primary cases.Conclusions and RelevanceHCWs represent a disproportionate number of COVID-19 cases in Ontario but with low confirmed numbers of nosocomial transmission. The data support substantial testing bias and under-ascertainment of general population cases. Protecting HCWs through appropriate personal protective equipment and physical distancing from colleagues is paramount.Key PointsQuestionWhat are the differences between healthcare workers and non-healthcare workers with COVID-19?FindingsIn this population-based cross-sectional study there were 4,230 healthcare workers comprising 17.5% of COVID-19 cases. Healthcare workers were diagnosed with COVID-19 at a rate 5.5 times higher than the general population with 0.8% of all healthcare workers, compared to 0.1% of non-healthcare workers.MeaningHigh healthcare worker COVID-19 burden highlights the importance of physical distancing from colleagues, appropriate personal protective equipment, as well as likely substantial testing bias and under-ascertainment of COVID-19 in the general population.


1997 ◽  
Vol 80 (4) ◽  
pp. 845-859 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joanna M Lynch ◽  
David M Barbano ◽  
J Richard Fleming

Abstract The Babcock test for determining fat in milk (AOAC Official Method 989.04) and in cream (AOAC Official Method 995.18) gives consistently higher test results than does the modified Mojonnier ether extraction reference method (AOAC Official Methods 989.05 and 995.19). To decrease the density of material in Babcock columns and thus lower test results, the Babcock method was modified by lowering the temperatures used at various points in the method, from about 57.5° to 48°C. Using the AOAC collaborative study format, 9 laboratories tested 9 pairs of blind duplicate raw milk samples (fat range 2.5–5.7%) and 9 pairs of blind duplicate heat-treated cream samples (fat range 30–45%) using the temperature modified (TM) Babcock method. The ether extraction test was conducted as the reference method. The statistical performance (invalid and outlier data removed) of the TM Babcock method was, for milk: percent fat value of 4.110, repeatability standard deviation (sr) value of 0.037, reproducibility standard deviation (sR) value of 0.047, repeatability relative standard deviation (RSDr) value of 0.901% and reproducibility relative standard deviation (RSDR) value of 1.147%; and for cream: percent fat value of 37.555, sr value of 0.258, sR value of 0.353, RSDr value of 0.687% and RSDR value of 0.940%. The TM Babcock method performance was acceptable but not as good as that achieved in previous studies of the unmodified method. For the TM Babcock and ether methods, respectively, average percentages fat were 4.110 and 4.114 for milk, and 37.555 and 37.485 for cream. Temperature modification statistically eliminated the testing bias between methods. The tem-perature modifications of the Babcock methods for determination of fat in milk and cream (989.04 and 995.18) have been adopted revised first action by AOAC INTERNATIONAL.


2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
John M. Mcconnell ◽  
Paul M. Spengler ◽  
Douglas C. Strohmer ◽  
Deborah J. Miller ◽  
Nicholas A. Lee

PLoS ONE ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. e0213727 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michèle N. Schubiger ◽  
Alexandra Kissling ◽  
Judith M. Burkart

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document