Inference is bliss: Simulation for power estimation for an observational study of a cholera outbreak intervention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The evaluation of ring vaccination and other outbreak-containment interventions during severe and rapidly-evolving epidemics presents a challenge for the choice of a feasible study design, and subsequently, for the estimation of statistical power. To support a future evaluation of a case-area targeted intervention against cholera, we have proposed a prospective observational study design to estimate the association between the strength of implementation of this intervention across several small outbreaks (occurring within geographically delineated clusters around primary and secondary cases named 'rings') and its effectiveness (defined as a reduction in cholera incidence). We describe here a strategy combining mathematical modelling and simulation to estimate power for a prospective observational study. METHODOLOGY AND PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The strategy combines stochastic modelling of transmission and the direct and indirect effects of the intervention in a set of rings, with a simulation of the study analysis on the model results. We found that targeting 80 to 100 rings was required to achieve power ≥80%, using a basic reproduction number of 2.0 and a dispersion coefficient of 1.0-1.5. CONCLUSIONS: This power estimation strategy is feasible to implement for observational study designs which aim to evaluate outbreak containment for other pathogens in geographically or socially defined rings.
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 | 0.095 | 0.265 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".