Addressing censoring issues in estimating the serial interval for tuberculosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The serial interval (SI), defined as the symptom time between an infector and an infectee, is widely used to better understand transmission patterns of an infectious disease. Estimating the SI for tuberculosis (TB) is complicated by the slow progression from asymptomatic infection to active, symptomatic disease, and the fact that there is only a 5-10% lifetime risk of developing active TB disease. Furthermore, the time of symptom onset for infectors and infectees is rarely observed accurately. In this dissertation, we first conduct a systematic literature review to demonstrate the limited methods currently available to estimate the serial interval for TB as well as the few estimates that have been published. Secondly, under the assumption of an ideal scenario where all SIs are observed with precision, we evaluate the effect of prior information on estimating the SI in a Bayesian framework. Thirdly, we apply cure models, proposed by Boag in 1949, to estimate the SI for TB in a Bayesian framework. We show that the cure models perform better in the presence of credible prior information on the proportion of the study population that develop active TB disease, and should be chosen over traditional survival models which assume that all of the study population will eventually have the event of interest—active TB disease. Next, we modify the method by Reich et al. in 2009 by using a Riemann sum to approximate the likelihood function that involves a double integral. In doing so, we are able to reduce the computing time of the approximation method by around 50%. We are also able to relax the assumption of uniformity on the censoring intervals. We show that when using weights that are consistent with the underlying skewness of the intervals, the proposed approaches consistently produce more accurate estimates than the existing approaches. We provide SI estimates for TB using empirical datasets from Brazil and USA/Canada.
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 | 0.107 | 0.385 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".