Mathematical modelling for pandemic preparedness in Canada: Learning from COVID-19
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The COVID-19 pandemic underlined the need for pandemic planning but also brought into focus the use of mathematical modelling to support public health decisions. The types of models needed (compartment, agent-based, importation) are described. Best practices regarding biological realism (including the need for multidisciplinary expert advisors to modellers), model complexity, consideration of uncertainty and communications to decision-makers and the public are outlined. Methods: A narrative review was developed from the experiences of COVID-19 by members of the Public Health Agency of Canada External Modelling Network for Infectious Diseases (PHAC EMN-ID), a national community of practice on mathematical modelling of infectious diseases for public health. Results: Modelling can best support pandemic preparedness in two ways: 1) by modelling to support decisions on resource needs for likely future pandemics by estimating numbers of infections, hospitalized cases and cases needing intensive care, associated with epidemics of "hypothetical-yet-plausible" pandemic pathogens in Canada; and 2) by having ready-to-go modelling methods that can be readily adapted to the features of an emerging pandemic pathogen and used for long-range forecasting of the epidemic in Canada, as well as to explore scenarios to support public health decisions on the use of interventions. Conclusion: There is a need for modelling expertise within public health organizations in Canada, linked to modellers in academia in a community of practice, within which relationships built outside of times of crisis can be applied to enhance modelling during public health emergencies. Key challenges to modelling for pandemic preparedness include the availability of linked public health, hospital and genomic data in Canada.
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 | 0.007 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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".