Preferential observation of large infectious disease outbreaks leads to consistent overestimation of intervention efficacy.
Zelner, J.; Masters, N. B.; Broen, K.; Lofgren, E.
Show abstract
Data from infectious disease outbreaks in congregate settings are often used to elicit clues about which types of interventions may be useful in other facilities. This is commonly done using before-and-after comparisons in which the infectiousness of pre-intervention cases is compared to that of post-intervention cases and the difference is attributed to intervention impact. In this manuscript, we show how a tendency to preferentially observe large outbreaks can lead to consistent overconfidence in how effective these interventions actually are. We show, in particular, that these inferences are highly susceptible to bias when the pathogen under consideration exhibits moderate-to-high amounts of heterogeneity in infectiousness. This includes important pathogens such as SARS-CoV-2, influenza, Noroviruses, HIV, Tuberculosis, and many others
Matching journals
The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- The Epidemiological Implications of Jails for Community, Corrections Officer, and Incarcerated Population Risks from COVID-19 95%
- Estimating vaccine efficacy against transmission via effect on viral load 94%
- Causal Estimands for Infectious Disease Count Outcomes to Investigate the Public Health Impact of Interventions 94%
Similar papers in this journal
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.