MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7117133926 · doi:10.64898/2025.12.22.695879

The limitations of non-mechanistic methods for characterizing pathogen-pathogen interactions: A simulation study

2025· article· W7117133926 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sarah Krämer, Sarah Pirikahu, Cana Kussmaul, Lulla Opatowski, Matthieu Domenech de Cellès

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldMathematics
TopicCOVID-19 epidemiological studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConfoundingGranger causalityInfectious disease (medical specialty)UncorrelatedPoint estimationFeature (linguistics)Range (aeronautics)Sensitivity (control systems)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Pathogen-pathogen interactions occur when infection with one pathogen influences one’s chance of infection or disease due to another. Increasingly, evidence suggests that interactions are a common feature of infectious disease epidemiology. However, due to both the nonlinearities and stochasticity inherent to infectious disease transmission, and the frequency of confounding (e.g., by shared seasonal forcing), simple, purely statistical methods for characterizing interactions may be prone to failure. Here, we perform a simulation study to evaluate several more complex non-mechanistic approaches for inferring causality from time series data: generalized additive models (GAMs), Granger causality, transfer entropy, and convergent cross-mapping (CCM). Specifically, we use a two-pathogen mechanistic transmission model, calibrated to produce dynamics resembling outbreaks of influenza and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), to generate synthetic datasets with a range of values for interaction strength and duration. We then apply each method to all synthetic datasets. We find that Granger causality, transfer entropy, and CCM all fail to consistently infer whether data contain signal of an interaction; in particular, methods tend to incorrectly identify interactions where none are modeled (average sensitivity = 80.6%, 92.1%, 72.1%, respectively; average specificity = 31.0%, 33.3%, 33.1%). Furthermore, we find little to no association between point estimates from each method and true interaction strength. In contrast, GAMs infer the existence of interactions more accurately than the other methods (sensitivity = 85.2%, specificity = 72.5%), and consistently yield larger point estimates for stronger interactions. However, their practical utility is limited by an inability to evaluate interaction asymmetry (i.e., whether the effect of pathogen A on pathogen B is identical to that of B on A). Overall performance patterns were similar when methods were applied to two real-world datasets from Hong Kong and Canada. We conclude that accurately and comprehensively characterizing pathogen-pathogen interactions based on outbreak data remains a significant challenge. For this reason, it is critical that any proposed methods be rigorously evaluated before being used to draw conclusions about interactions. Author Summary Pathogen-pathogen interactions occur when infection with one pathogen either increases or decreases a person’s risk of infection or illness due to a second, distinct pathogen. Because interactions affect several common human pathogens, including influenza and SARS-CoV-2, a better understanding of interactions could improve epidemic control. However, past work has shown that simple methods commonly used to study interactions can lead to inaccurate conclusions. Here, we tested four methods frequently used in other fields, including ecology and neuroscience, to see whether they may also be useful for identifying interactions. Specifically, we tested each method using simulated outbreak data generated from a mathematical model. We found that most methods struggled to correctly determine whether an interaction effect was present; in particular, methods often falsely identified interactions when none occurred. Although one of the tested methods, generalized additive models, performed comparatively well at identifying interactions, it provided relatively little additional information about the interactions. Because pathogen-pathogen interactions are so challenging to study, it is important that researchers rigorously test methods before applying them to interactions, so as not to publish potentially misleading results. More broadly, a complete understanding of interactions will likely require a variety of approaches, including both laboratory and modeling studies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.056
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.093

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.056
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.174
GPT teacher head0.422
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)→Same topicCOVID-19 epidemiological studies→French-language works237,207→