Best practices for estimating and reporting epidemiological delay distributions of infectious diseases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Epidemiological delays are key quantities that inform public health policy and clinical practice. They are used as inputs for mathematical and statistical models, which in turn can guide control strategies. In recent work, we found that censoring, right truncation, and dynamical bias were rarely addressed correctly when estimating delays and that these biases were large enough to have knock-on impacts across a large number of use cases. Here, we formulate a checklist of best practices for estimating and reporting epidemiological delays. We also provide a flowchart to guide practitioners based on their data. Our examples are focused on the incubation period and serial interval due to their importance in outbreak response and modeling, but our recommendations are applicable to other delays. The recommendations, which are based on the literature and our experience estimating epidemiological delay distributions during outbreak responses, can help improve the robustness and utility of reported estimates and provide guidance for the evaluation of estimates for downstream use in transmission models or other analyses.
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 | 0.242 | 0.681 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.019 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.014 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.011 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".