Mathematical modelling of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Due to high burden of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC), international funding organizations have prioritized the development of RSV vaccines. Mathematical models of RSV will play an important role in assessing the relative value of these interventions. Our objectives were to provide an overview of the existing RSV modelling literature in LMIC and summarize available results on population-level effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE from 2000 to 2020 for English language publications that employed a mathematical model of RSV calibrated to LMIC. Qualitative data were extracted on study and model characteristics. Quantitative data were collected on key model input assumptions and base case effectiveness and cost-effectiveness estimates for various immunization strategies. FINDINGS: Of the 283 articles reviewed, 15 met inclusion criteria. Ten studies used modelling techniques to explore RSV transmission and/or natural history, while eight studies evaluated RSV vaccines and/or monoclonal antibodies, three of which included cost-effectiveness analyses. Six studies employed deterministic compartmental models, five studies employed individual transmission models, and four studies used different types of cohort models. Nearly every model was calibrated to at least one middle-income country, while four were calibrated to low-income countries. INTERPRETATION: The mathematical modelling literature in LMIC has demonstrated the potential effectiveness of RSV vaccines and monoclonal antibodies. This review has demonstrated the importance of accounting for seasonality, social contact rates, immunity from prior infection and maternal antibody transfer. Future models should consider incorporating individual-level risk factors, subtype-specific effects, long-term sequelae of RSV infections, and out-of-hospital mortality.
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 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".