Beyond $R_0$: the importance of contact tracing when predicting epidemics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The basic reproductive number --- R0 --- is one of the most common and most commonly misapplied numbers in public health. Nevertheless, estimating R0 for every transmissible pathogen, emerging or endemic, remains a priority for epidemiologists the world over. Although often used to compare outbreaks and forecast pandemic risk, this single number belies the complexity that two different pathogens can exhibit, even when they have the same R0. Here, we show how predicting outbreak size requires both an estimate of R0 and an estimate of the heterogeneity in the number of secondary infections. To facilitate rapid determination of outbreak risk, we propose a reformulation of a classic result from random network theory that relies on contact tracing data to simultaneously determine the first moment (R0) and the higher moments (representing the heterogeneity) in the distribution of secondary infections. Further, we show how this framework is robust in the face of the typically limited amount of data for emerging pathogens. Lastly, we demonstrate that without data on the heterogeneity in secondary infections for emerging pathogens like 2019-nCoV, the uncertainty in outbreak size ranges dramatically, in the case of 2019-nCoV from 5-40% of susceptible individuals. Taken together, our work highlights the critical need for contact tracing during emerging infectious disease outbreaks and the need to look beyond R0 when predicting epidemic size.
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 | 0.008 | 0.072 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".