Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32392252›Full record

SynthesisPLoS computational biology2020

Calibration of individual-based models to epidemiological data: A systematic review.

C Marijn Hazelbag, Jonathan Dushoff, Emanuel M Dominic, Zinhle E Mthombothi, Wim Delva

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PLoS computational biology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Modeling the Impact of Multicancer Early Detection Tests: A Review of Natural History of Disease Models.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2025
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Calibration and Validation of the Colorectal Cancer and Adenoma Incidence and Mortality (CRC-AIM) Microsimulation Model Using Deep Neural Networks.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2023
    Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

C Marijn HazelbagSouth African DSI-NRF Centre of Excellence in Epidemiological Modelling and Analysis (SACEMA), Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa.ORCID 0000-0002-7694-5436
Jonathan DushoffSouth African DSI-NRF Centre of Excellence in Epidemiological Modelling and Analysis (SACEMA), Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa.ORCID 0000-0003-0506-4794
Emanuel M DominicSouth African DSI-NRF Centre of Excellence in Epidemiological Modelling and Analysis (SACEMA), Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa.ORCID 0000-0003-1525-8250
Zinhle E MthombothiSouth African DSI-NRF Centre of Excellence in Epidemiological Modelling and Analysis (SACEMA), Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa.
Wim DelvaSouth African DSI-NRF Centre of Excellence in Epidemiological Modelling and Analysis (SACEMA), Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa.ORCID 0000-0001-8054-1904

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Individual-based models (IBMs) informing public health policy should be calibrated to data and provide estimates of uncertainty. Two main components of model-calibration methods are the parameter-search strategy and the goodness-of-fit (GOF) measure; many options exist for each of these. This review provides an overview of calibration methods used in IBMs modelling infectious disease spread. We identified articles on PubMed employing simulation-based methods to calibrate IBMs informing public health policy in HIV, tuberculosis, and malaria epidemiology published between 1 January 2013 and 31 December 2018. Articles were included if models stored individual-specific information, and calibration involved comparing model output to population-level targets. We extracted information on parameter-search strategies, GOF measures, and model validation. The PubMed search identified 653 candidate articles, of which 84 met the review criteria. Of the included articles, 40 (48%) combined a quantitative GOF measure with an algorithmic parameter-search strategy-either an optimisation algorithm (14/40) or a sampling algorithm (26/40). These 40 articles varied widely in their choices of parameter-search strategies and GOF measures. For the remaining 44 (52%) articles, the parameter-search strategy could either not be identified (32/44) or was described as an informal, non-reproducible method (12/44). Of these 44 articles, the majority (25/44) were unclear about the GOF measure used; of the rest, only five quantitatively evaluated GOF. Only a minority of the included articles, 14 (17%) provided a rationale for their choice of model-calibration method. Model validation was reported in 31 (37%) articles. Reporting on calibration methods is far from optimal in epidemiological modelling studies of HIV, malaria and TB transmission dynamics. The adoption of better documented, algorithmic calibration methods could improve both reproducibility and the quality of inference in model-based epidemiology. There is a need for research comparing the performance of calibration methods to inform decisions about the parameter-search strategies and GOF measures.

Indexed as

Models, TheoreticalAlgorithmsCalibrationCommunicable DiseasesHIV InfectionsHumansMalariaReproducibility of ResultsTuberculosis

Identifiers

PMID32392252
PMCPMC7241852

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.