Fitting mechanistic epidemic models to data: a comparison of simple Markov chain Monte Carlo approaches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Simple mechanistic epidemic models are widely used for forecasting and parameter estimation of infectious diseases based on noisy case reporting data. Despite the widespread application of models to emerging infectious diseases, we know little about the comparative performance of standard computational-statistical frameworks in these contexts. Here we build a simple stochastic, discrete-time, discrete-state epidemic model with both process and observation error and use it to characterize the effectiveness of different flavours of Bayesian Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) techniques. We use fits to simulated data, where parameters (and future behaviour) are known to explore the limitations of different platforms and quantify parameter estimation accuracy, forecasting accuracy, and computational efficiency across combinations of modeling decisions (e.g. discrete vs. continuous latent states, levels of stochasticity) and computational platforms (JAGS, NIMBLE, Stan). Results Models incorporating at least one source of population-level variation (i.e., dispersion in either the transmission process or the observation process) provide reasonably good forecasts and parameter estimates, while models that incorporate only individual-level variation can lead to inaccurate (or overconfident) results. Models using continuous approximations to the transmission process showed improved computational efficiency without loss of accuracy. Conclusion Simple models of disease transmission and observation can be fitted reliably to simple simulations, as long as population-level variation is taken into account. Continuous approximations can improve computational efficiency using more advanced MCMC techniques.
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 | 0.013 | 0.063 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".