MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2999489060 · doi:10.1016/j.idm.2020.07.004

Contribution of high risk groups’ unmet needs may be underestimated in epidemic models without risk turnover: A mechanistic modelling analysis

2020· preprint· en· W2999489060 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInfectious Disease Modelling · 2020
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicReproductive tract infections research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Institute of Nursing ResearchCenter for AIDS Research, University of WashingtonNational Institutes of HealthJohns Hopkins University
KeywordsTurnoverHerd immunityAttributable riskDemographyRelative riskRisk modelRisk assessmentPopulationMedicineEnvironmental healthRisk analysis (engineering)Internal medicineEconomicsConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Epidemic models of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) are often used to characterize the contribution of risk groups to overall transmission by projecting the transmission population attributable fraction (tPAF) of unmet prevention and treatment needs within risk groups. However, evidence suggests that STI risk is dynamic over an individual's sexual life course, which manifests as turnover between risk groups. We sought to examine the mechanisms by which turnover influences modelled projections of the tPAF of high risk groups. METHODS: We developed a unifying, data-guided framework to simulate risk group turnover in deterministic, compartmental transmission models. We applied the framework to an illustrative model of an STI and examined the mechanisms by which risk group turnover influenced equilibrium prevalence across risk groups. We then fit a model with and without turnover to the same risk-stratified STI prevalence targets and compared the inferred level of risk heterogeneity and tPAF of the highest risk group projected by the two models. RESULTS: The influence of turnover on group-specific prevalence was mediated by three main phenomena: movement of previously high risk individuals with the infection into lower risk groups; changes to herd effect in the highest risk group; and changes in the number of partnerships where transmission can occur. Faster turnover led to a smaller ratio of STI prevalence between the highest and lowest risk groups. Compared to the fitted model without turnover, the fitted model with turnover inferred greater risk heterogeneity and consistently projected a larger tPAF of the highest risk group over time. IMPLICATIONS: If turnover is not captured in epidemic models, the projected contribution of high risk groups, and thus, the potential impact of prioritizing interventions to address their needs, could be underestimated. To aid the next generation of tPAF models, data collection efforts to parameterize risk group turnover should be prioritized.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.512
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.046
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.254 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it