The Effect of Misspecifying Latent and Infectious Periods in Space-Time Epidemic Models
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it