Temporal and probabilistic comparisons of epidemic interventions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Forecasting disease spread is a critical tool to help public health officials design and plan public health interventions. However, the expected future state of an epidemic is not necessarily well defined as disease spread is inherently stochastic, contact patterns within a population are heterogeneous, and behaviors change. In this work, we use time-dependent probability generating functions (PGFs) to capture these characteristics by modeling a stochastic branching process of the spread of a disease over a network of contacts in which public health interventions are introduced over time. To achieve this, we define a general transmissibility equation to account for varying transmission rates (e.g. masking), recovery rates (e.g. treatment), contact patterns (e.g. social distancing) and percentage of the population immunized (e.g. vaccination). The resulting framework allows for a temporal and probabilistic analysis of an intervention's impact on disease spread, which match continuous-time stochastic simulations that are much more computationally expensive. To aid policy making, we then define several metrics over which temporal and probabilistic intervention forecasts can be compared: Looking at the expected number of cases and the worst-case scenario over time, as well as the probability of reaching a critical level of cases and of not seeing any improvement following an intervention. Given that epidemics do not always follow their average expected trajectories and that the underlying dynamics can change over time, our work paves the way for more detailed short-term forecasts of disease spread and more informed comparison of intervention strategies.
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 | 0.022 | 0.088 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".