Estimating Direct and Spillover Vaccine Effectiveness with Partial Interference under Test-Negative Design Sampling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The Test-Negative Design (TND), which involves recruiting care-seeking individuals who meet predefined clinical case criteria, offers valid statistical inference for Vaccine Effectiveness (VE) using data collected through passive surveillance, making it cost-efficient and timely. Infectious disease epidemiology often involves interference, where the treatment and/or outcome of one individual can affect the outcomes of others, rendering standard causal estimands ill-defined; ignoring such interference can bias VE evaluation and lead to ineffective vaccination policies. This article addresses the estimation of causal estimands for VE in the presence of partial interference using TND samples. Partial interference means that the vaccination of units within the same group/cluster may influence the outcomes of other members of the cluster. We define the population direct, spillover, total, and overall effects using the geometric risk ratio, which are identifiable under TND sampling. We investigate various stochastic policies for vaccine allocation in a counterfactual scenario, and identify policy-relevant VE causal estimands. We propose inverse-probability weighted (IPW) estimators for estimating the policy-relevant VE causal estimands with partial interference under the TND, and explore the statistical properties of these estimators.
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 | 0.097 | 0.239 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".