Disseminated Effects in Agent-Based Models: A Potential Outcomes Framework and Application to Inform Preexposure Prophylaxis Coverage Levels for HIV Prevention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for prevention of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection may benefit not only the person who uses it but also their uninfected sexual risk contacts. We developed an agent-based model using a novel trial emulation approach to quantify disseminated effects of PrEP use among men who have sex with men in Atlanta, Georgia, from 2015 to 2017. Model components (subsets of agents connected through partnerships in a sexual network but not sharing partnerships with any other agents) were first randomized to an intervention coverage level or the control group; then, within intervention components, eligible agents were randomized to receive or not receive PrEP. We calculated direct and disseminated (indirect) effects using randomization-based estimators and report corresponding 95% simulation intervals across scenarios ranging from 10% coverage in the intervention components to 90% coverage. A population of 11,245 agents was simulated, with an average of 1,551 components identified. When comparing agents randomized to no PrEP in 70% coverage components with control agents, there was a 15% disseminated risk reduction in HIV incidence (risk ratio = 0.85, 95% simulation interval: 0.65, 1.05). Persons not on PrEP may receive a protective benefit by being in a sexual network with higher PrEP coverage. Agent-based models are useful for evaluating possible direct and disseminated effects of HIV prevention modalities in sexual networks.
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 | 0.020 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".