Assessing COVID-19 Prevalence in Austria with Infection Surveys and Case Count Data as Auxiliary Information
结合感染调查与病例计数辅助信息估计奥地利新冠感染率AI 解读 ↓
本页整理公开书目信息,不生成学术质量评分。AI 解读根据题名及所注明的摘要或原文片段生成,未完成全文核验,可能有误;具体假设、证明与结论请核对原文。摘要保留来源文本,未经模型改写。
DOI 首次登记不等于接收或发表日期。部分更正、评论等条目没有独立摘要;缺少可靠材料时保留待补状态。
引用量采用 OpenAlex 单条关联记录,不合计多个记录;关联记录可能包含正式发表版本,不等于此版本单独引用。缺失不视为零,引用指标不代表论文质量。
关注作者按书目中的完整姓名匹配,同名和姓名变体需人工辨别。相关论文先按共享细分方向和具体方法排列,再参考通用方法与发表日期。
AI 根据所提供的论文材料归类:摘要研究感染率调查估计与辅助信息利用,未直接分析因果效应、经济面板或时间序列模型。
结合感染调查与病例计数辅助信息估计奥地利新冠感染率AI 解读 ↓
正在核对关联版本…
正在核对对应版本的资源…
Countries officially record the number of COVID-19 cases based on medical tests of a subset of the population. These case count data obviously suffer from participation bias, and for prevalence estimation, these data are typically discarded in favour of infection surveys, or possibly also completed with auxiliary information. One exception is the series of infection surveys recorded by the Statistics Austria Federal Institute to study the prevalence of COVID-19 in Austria in April, May and November 2020. In these infection surveys, participants were additionally asked if they were simultaneously recorded as COVID-19 positive in the case count data. In this paper, we analyze the benefits of properly combining the outcomes from the infection survey with the case count data, to analyze the prevalence of COVID-19 in Austria in 2020, from which the case ascertainment rate can be deduced. The results show that our approach leads to a significant efficiency gain. Indeed, considerably smaller infection survey samples suffice to obtain the same level of estimation accuracy. Our estimation method can also handle measurement errors due to the sensitivity and specificity of medical testing devices and to the nonrandom sample weighting scheme of the infection survey. The proposed estimators and associated confidence intervals are implemented in the companion open source R package pempi available on the Comprehensive R Archive Network (CRAN).