Contribution of high risk groups’ unmet needs may be underestimated in epidemic models without risk turnover: A mechanistic modelling analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".