Forward-looking serial intervals correctly link epidemic growth to reproduction numbers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The reproduction number R and the growth rate r are critical epidemiological quantities. They are linked by generation intervals, the time between infection and onward transmission. Because generation intervals are difficult to observe, epidemiologists often substitute serial intervals, the time between symptom onset in successive links in a transmission chain. Recent studies suggest that such substitution biases estimates of R based on r. Here we explore how these intervals vary over the course of an epidemic, and the implications for R estimation. Forward-looking serial intervals, measuring time forward from symptom onset of an infector, correctly describe the renewal process of symptomatic cases and therefore reliably link R with r. In contrast, backward-looking intervals, which measure time backward, and intrinsic intervals, which neglect population-level dynamics, give incorrect R estimates. Forward-looking intervals are affected both by epidemic dynamics and by censoring, changing in complex ways over the course of an epidemic. We present a heuristic method for addressing biases that arise from neglecting changes in serial intervals. We apply the method to early (21 January to February 8, 2020) serial interval-based estimates of R for the COVID-19 outbreak in China outside Hubei province; using improperly defined serial intervals in this context biases estimates of initial R by up to a factor of 2.6. This study demonstrates the importance of early contact tracing efforts and provides a framework for reassessing generation intervals, serial intervals, and R estimates for COVID-19.
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 | 0.010 | 0.077 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".