Sampling-Based Likelihood Approximations for Infectious Disease Models and Other Related Topics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Deardon et al. (2010) describe a class of individual-level models (ILMs), fitted in a Bayesian framework using Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) techniques. They are used to model the spread of infectious diseases in discrete time. A key feature of these ILMs is that they take into account covariate information on susceptible and infectious individuals as well as shared covariate information such as geography or contact measures. These models quantify probabilistic outcomes regarding the risk of infection. ILMs are developed and fitted to data sets from two studies on influenza transmission within households in Hong Kong during 2008--2009 and 2009--2010. The goal is to estimate the effect of vaccination on infection risk and choose a model that best fits the infection data. The infectious pressure exerted on susceptible individuals defines the hazard rate (in survival analysis terminology) for individuals. Unfortunately, quantifying this infectious pressure for each individual over time can be computationally burdensome, leading to a time-consuming likelihood calculation and, thus, MCMC-based analysis. Therefore, we introduce sampling methods to speed-up the calculation of the likelihood function. We compare a simple random sampling scheme with a number of spatially-stratified sampling approaches. The performances of the sampling-based likelihood approximations are tested and compared via simulation studies, and using data from the 2001 foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) epidemic in the U.K. Data augmentation is a technique used in Bayesian inference that allows the parameter set to be augmented by parameters representing missing or censored data. Here, infection times are treated as missing information. The problem of computation time worsens when using data augmentation to allow for uncertainty in infection times due to a significant increase in the number of times the likelihood function is calculated at each MCMC step. Therefore, we expand the data-sampling-based likelihood approximating algorithms and develop sampling methods that allow for data augmented infection times parameters. Once again, a simple random sampling approach is initially considered followed by various spatially-stratified schemes. We test and compare the performances of our methods using simulated data, and data from the 2001 FMD epidemic in the U.K.
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 | 0.016 | 0.065 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".