ArticleBMC medical research methodology2025
A data-driven approach to study temporal characteristics of COVID-19 infection and death Time Series for twelve countries across six continents.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- New approaches to meta-analyze differences in skewness, kurtosis, and correlation.PLoS biology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn this work, we implement a data-driven approach using an aggregation of several analytical methods to study the characteristics of COVID-19 daily infection and death time series and identify correlations and characteristic trends that can be corroborated to the time evolution of this disease. The datasets cover twelve distinct countries across six continents, from January 22, 2020 till March 1, 2022. This time span is partitioned into three windows: (1) pre-vaccine, (2) post-vaccine and pre-omicron (BA.1 variant), and (3) post-vaccine including post-omicron variant. This study enables deriving insights into intriguing questions related to the science of system dynamics pertaining to COVID-19 evolution.
methodsWe implement a set of several distinct analytical methods for: (a) statistical studies to estimate the skewness and kurtosis of the data distributions; (b) analyzing the stationarity properties of these time series using the Augmented Dickey-Fuller (ADF) tests; (c) examining co-integration properties for the non-stationary time series using the Phillips-Ouliaris (PO) tests; (d) calculating the Hurst exponent using the rescaled-range (R/S) analysis, along with the Detrended Fluctuation Analysis (DFA), for self-affinity studies of the evolving dynamical datasets.
resultsWe notably observe a significant asymmetry of distributions shows from skewness and the presence of heavy tails is noted from kurtosis. The daily infection and death data are, by and large, nonstationary, while their corresponding log return values render stationarity. The self-affinity studies through the Hurst exponents and DFA exhibit intriguing local changes over time. These changes can be attributed to the underlying dynamics of state transitions, especially from a random state to either mean-reversion or long-range memory/persistence states.
conclusionsWe conduct systematic studies covering a widely diverse time series datasets of the daily infections and deaths during the evolution of the COVID-19 pandemic. We demonstrate the merit of a multiple analytics frameworks through systematically laying down a methodological structure for analyses and quantitatively examining the evolution of the daily COVID-19 infection and death cases. This methodology builds a capability for tracking dynamically evolving states pertaining to critical problems.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.