Revised simulation model does not predict rebound in gonorrhoea prevalence where core groups are treated in the presence of antimicrobial resistance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects of using discrete versus continuous quantities of people in a compartmental model examining the contribution of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) to rebound in the prevalence of gonorrhoea. METHODS: A previously published transmission model was reconfigured to represent the occurrence of gonorrhoea in discrete persons, rather than allowing fractions of infected individuals during simulations. RESULTS: In the revised model, prevalence only rebounded under scenarios reproduced from the original paper when AMR occurrence was increased by 10(5) times. In such situations, treatment of high-risk individuals yielded outcomes very similar to those resulting from treatment of low-risk and intermediate-risk individuals. Otherwise, in contrast with the original model, prevalence was the lowest when the high-risk group was treated, supporting the current policy of targeting treatment to high-risk groups. CONCLUSIONS: Simulation models can be highly sensitive to structural features. Small differences in structure and parameters can substantially influence predicted outcomes and policy prescriptions, and must be carefully considered.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".