The Effect of Misspecifying Latent and Infectious Periods in Space-Time Epidemic Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Individual level models (ILMs) are a class of models that can be applied to epidemic data to help in the understanding of the spatio-temporal dynamics of infectious diseases. Typically, these models are analyzed in a Bayesian framework using Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) methodology. Here, we test the effect of misspecifying the latent and infectious period in such a model. We do this by simulating data from a simple spatial ILM, and then fitting various misspecified models to the simulated data. The fitted models serve as a basis for investigating the effect of the misspecification of latent and infectious periods on model parameter estimates, as well as estimates of the basic reproduction number.Additionally, we analyze how a given preventative control strategy, optimized via simulation from a fitted model with assumed latent and infectious periods, is affected by such misspecification. We observe bias in the estimation of model parameters as latent and infectious periods become more misspecified, as well as a significant deviation in estimates of the basic reproduction number from those observed under the true model. Where the misspecification results in a higher basic reproduction number estimate, we also find that a more stringent control policy is required to achieve a given policy goal.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.026 | 0.128 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".