Parameterizing a dynamic influenza model using longitudinal versus age-stratified case notifications yields different predictions of vaccine impacts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dynamic transmission models of influenza are sometimes used in decision-making to identify which vaccination strategies might best reduce influenza-associated health burdens. Our goal was to use laboratory confirmed influenza cases to fit model parameters in an age-structured, two-type (influenza A/B) dynamic model of influenza. We compared the fitted model under two fitting methodologies: using longitudinal weekly case notification data versus using cross-sectional age-stratified cumulative case notification data. The longitudinal data came from a Canadian province (Ontario)whereasthecross-sectionaldatacamefromthenationallevel(allofCanada). Wefindthatthe longitudinal fitting method provides best fitting parameter sets that have a higher variance between the respective parameters in each set than the cross-sectional cumulative case method. Model predictions-particularly for influenza A-are very different for the two fitting methodologies under hypothetical vaccination scenarios that expand coverage in either younger age classes or older age classes: the cross-sectional method predicts much larger decreases in total cases under expanded vaccine coverage than the longitudinal method. Also, the longitudinal method predicts that vaccinating younger age groups yields greater declines in total cases than vaccinating older age groups, whereas the cross- sectional method predicts the opposite. We conclude that model predictions of vaccination impacts under different strategies may differ at national versus provincial levels. Finally, we discuss whether usinglongitudinalversuscross-sectionaldatainmodelfittingmaygeneratefurtherdifferencesinmodel predictions (above and beyond population-specific differences) and how such a hypothesis could be tested in future studies.
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 | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".