Some principles for using epidemiologic study results to parameterize transmission models
Joshi, K.; Kahn, R.; Boyer, C.; Lipsitch, M.
Show abstract
BackgroundInfectious disease models, including individual based models (IBMs), can be used to inform public health response. For these models to be effective, accurate estimates of key parameters describing the natural history of infection and disease are needed. However, obtaining these parameter estimates from epidemiological studies is not always straightforward. We aim to 1) outline challenges to parameter estimation that arise due to common biases found in epidemiologic studies and 2) describe the conditions under which careful consideration in the design and analysis of the study could allow us to obtain a causal estimate of the parameter of interest. In this discussion we do not focus on issues of generalizability and transportability. MethodsUsing examples from the COVID-19 pandemic, we first identify different ways of parameterizing IBMs and describe ideal study designs to estimate these parameters. Given real-world limitations, we describe challenges in parameter estimation due to confounding and conditioning on a post-exposure observation. We then describe ideal study designs that can lead to unbiased parameter estimates. We finally discuss additional challenges in estimating progression probabilities and the consequences of these challenges. ResultsCausal estimation can only occur if we are able to accurately measure and control for all confounding variables that create non-causal associations between the exposure and outcome of interest, which is sometimes challenging given the nature of the variables we need to measure. In the absence of perfect control, non-causal parameter estimates should still be used, as sometimes they are the best available information we have. ConclusionsIdentifying which estimates from epidemiologic studies correspond to the quantities needed to parameterize disease models, and determining whether these parameters have causal interpretations, can inform future study designs and improve inferences from infectious disease models. Understanding the way in which biases can arise in parameter estimation can inform sensitivity analyses or help with interpretation of results if the magnitude and direction of the bias is understood.
Matching journals
The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Use of recently vaccinated individuals to detect bias in test-negative case-control studies of COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness 98%
- Theoretical framework for retrospective studies of the effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines 97%
- Causal Estimands for Infectious Disease Count Outcomes to Investigate the Public Health Impact of Interventions 96%
Similar papers in this journal
- Estimating protection afforded by prior infection in preventing reinfection: Applying the test-negative study design 95%
- Potential Biases in Test-Negative Design Studies of COVID-19 Vaccine Effectiveness Arising from the Inclusion of Asymptomatic Individuals 95%
- Protection of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection is similar to that of BNT162b2 vaccine protection: A three-month nationwide experience from Israel 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Estimation of Vaccine Efficacy for Variants that Emerge After the Placebo Group Is Vaccinated 96%
- A Double Machine Learning Approach for the Evaluation of COVID-19 Vaccine Effectiveness under the Test-Negative Design: Analysis of Québec Administrative Data 95%
- The required size of cluster randomized trials of non-pharmaceutical interventions in epidemic settings 94%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Potential Test-Negative Design Study Bias in Outbreak Settings: Application to Ebola vaccination in Democratic Republic of Congo 96%
- Causes of Outcome Learning: A causal inference-inspired machine learning approach to disentangling common combinations of potential causes of a health outcome 93%
- Pathway-specific population attributable fractions 92%
"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.