MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385442732 · doi:10.1007/s00285-023-01958-w

Unifying incidence and prevalence under a time-varying general branching process

2023· article· en· W4385442732 on OpenAlexaff
Mikko S. Pakkanen, Xenia Miscouridou, Matthew J. Penn, Charles A. Whittaker, Tresnia Berah, Swapnil Mishra, Thomas A. Mellan, Samir Bhatt

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Mathematical Biology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicCOVID-19 epidemiological studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersEuropean and Developing Countries Clinical Trials PartnershipNovo Nordisk FondenDanmarks GrundforskningsfondForeign, Commonwealth and Development OfficeNational Research FoundationEuropean CommissionNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchNational Institute for Health Research Health Protection Research UnitMedical Research CouncilNovo NordiskSchmidt Family Foundation
KeywordsMathematicsBranching processIncidence (geometry)Renewal theoryEpidemic modelApplied mathematicsBasic reproduction numberStatisticsMedicineGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Renewal equations are a popular approach used in modelling the number of new infections, i.e., incidence, in an outbreak. We develop a stochastic model of an outbreak based on a time-varying variant of the Crump-Mode-Jagers branching process. This model accommodates a time-varying reproduction number and a time-varying distribution for the generation interval. We then derive renewal-like integral equations for incidence, cumulative incidence and prevalence under this model. We show that the equations for incidence and prevalence are consistent with the so-called back-calculation relationship. We analyse two particular cases of these integral equations, one that arises from a Bellman-Harris process and one that arises from an inhomogeneous Poisson process model of transmission. We also show that the incidence integral equations that arise from both of these specific models agree with the renewal equation used ubiquitously in infectious disease modelling. We present a numerical discretisation scheme to solve these equations, and use this scheme to estimate rates of transmission from serological prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in the UK and historical incidence data on Influenza, Measles, SARS and Smallpox.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.210
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.195
GPT teacher head0.450
Teacher spread0.255 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Mathematical BiologySame topicCOVID-19 epidemiological studiesFrench-language works237,207