Despite the widespread implementation of public health measures, COVID-19 continues to spread in the United States. To facilitate an agile response to the pandemic, we developed How We Feel, a web and mobile application that collects longitudinal self-reported survey responses on health, behavior, and demographics. Here we report results from over 500,000 users in the United States from April 2, 2020 to May 12, 2020. We show that self-reported surveys can be used to build predictive models to identify likely COVID-19 positive individuals. We find evidence among our users for asymptomatic or presymptomatic presentation, show a variety of exposure, occupation, and demographic risk factors for COVID-19 beyond symptoms, reveal factors for which users have been SARS-CoV-2 PCR tested, and highlight the temporal dynamics of symptoms and self-isolation behavior. These results highlight the utility of collecting a diverse set of symptomatic, demographic, exposure, and behavioral self-reported data to fight the COVID-19 pandemic.

An important goal of environmental health research is to assess the risk posed by mixtures of environmental exposures. Two popular classes of models for mixtures analyses are response‐surface methods and exposure‐index methods. Response‐surface methods estimate high‐dimensional surfaces and are thus highly flexible but difficult to interpret. In contrast, exposure‐index methods decompose coefficients from a linear model into an overall mixture effect and individual index weights; these models yield easily interpretable effect estimates and efficient inferences when model assumptions hold, but, like most parsimonious models, incur bias when these assumptions do not hold. In this paper, we propose a Bayesian multiple index model framework that combines the strengths of each, allowing for non‐linear and non‐additive relationships between exposure indices and a health outcome, while reducing the dimensionality of the exposure vector and estimating index weights with variable selection. This framework contains response‐surface and exposure‐index models as special cases, thereby unifying the two analysis strategies. This unification increases the range of models possible for analysing environmental mixtures and health, allowing one to select an appropriate analysis from a spectrum of models varying in flexibility and interpretability. In an analysis of the association between telomere length and 18 organic pollutants in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), the proposed approach fits the data as well as more complex response‐surface methods and yields more interpretable results.

Despite social distancing and shelter-in-place policies, COVID-19 continues to spread in the United States. A lack of timely information about factors influencing COVID-19 spread and testing has hampered agile responses to the pandemic. We developed How We Feel, an extensible web and mobile application that aggregates self-reported survey responses, to fill gaps in the collection of COVID-19-related data. How We Feel collects longitudinal and geographically localized information on users' health, behavior, and demographics. Here we report results from over 500,000 users in the United States from April 2, 2020 to May 12, 2020. We show that self- reported surveys can be used to build predictive models of COVID-19 test results, which may aid in identification of likely COVID-19 positive individuals. We find evidence among our users for asymptomatic or presymptomatic presentation, as well as for household and community exposure, occupation, and demographics being strong risk factors for COVID-19. We further reveal factors for which users have been SARS-CoV-2 PCR tested, as well as the temporal dynamics of self- reported symptoms and self-isolation behavior in positive and negative users. These results highlight the utility of collecting a diverse set of symptomatic, demographic, and behavioral self- reported data to fight the COVID-19 pandemic.

Electronic health records (EHRs) offer unprecedented opportunities to answer epidemiologic questions. However, unlike in ordinary cohort studies or randomized trials, EHR data are collected somewhat idiosyncratically. In particular, patients who have more contact with the medical system have more opportunities to receive diagnoses, which are then recorded in their EHRs. The goal of this article is to shed light on the nature and scope of this phenomenon, known as informative presence, which can bias estimates of associations. We show how this can be characterized as an instance of misclassification bias. As a consequence, we show that informative presence bias can occur in a broader range of settings than previously thought, and that simple adjustment for the number of visits as a confounder may not fully correct for bias. Additionally, where previous work has considered only underdiagnosis, investigators are often concerned about overdiagnosis; we show how this changes the settings in which bias manifests. We report on a comprehensive series of simulations to shed light on when to expect informative presence bias, how it can be mitigated in some cases, and cases in which new methods need to be developed.