Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32820573›Full record

ArticleJournal of evaluation in clinical practice2020

Agent-based modelling for SARS-CoV-2 epidemic prediction and intervention assessment: A methodological appraisal.

Mariusz Maziarz, Martin Zach

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of evaluation in clinical practice, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
–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

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Mathematical modeling and estimation for next wave of COVID-19 in Poland.Stochastic environmental research and risk assessment : research journal · 2022
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Descriptive understanding and prediction in COVID-19 modelling.History and philosophy of the life sciences · 2021
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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

2 authors.

Mariusz MaziarzInterdisciplinary Centre for Ethics, Jagiellonian University, Kraków, Poland.ORCID 0000-0003-1979-0746
Martin ZachDepartment of Philosophy and Religious Studies, Faculty of Arts, Charles University in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic.ORCID 0000-0001-7181-0391

Funding

European Research Council, European Union's Horizon 2020 805498Grantová Agentura České Republiky GA ČR 19-04236S
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOur purpose is to assess epidemiological agent-based models-or ABMs-of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic methodologically. The rapid spread of the outbreak requires fast-paced decision-making regarding mitigation measures. However, the evidence for the efficacy of non-pharmaceutical interventions such as imposed social distancing and school or workplace closures is scarce: few observational studies use quasi-experimental research designs, and conducting randomized controlled trials seems infeasible. Additionally, evidence from the previous coronavirus outbreaks of SARS and MERS lacks external validity, given the significant differences in contagiousness of those pathogens relative to SARS-CoV-2. To address the pressing policy questions that have emerged as a result of COVID-19, epidemiologists have produced numerous models that range from simple compartmental models to highly advanced agent-based models. These models have been criticized for involving simplifications and lacking empirical support for their assumptions.

methodsTo address these voices and methodologically appraise epidemiological ABMs, we consider AceMod (the model of the COVID-19 epidemic in Australia) as a case study of the modelling practice.

resultsOur example shows that, although epidemiological ABMs involve simplifications of various sorts, the key characteristics of social interactions and the spread of SARS-CoV-2 are represented sufficiently accurately. This is the case because these modellers treat empirical results as inputs for constructing modelling assumptions and rules that the agents follow; and they use calibration to assert the adequacy to benchmark variables.

conclusionsGiven this, we claim that the best epidemiological ABMs are models of actual mechanisms and deliver both mechanistic and difference-making evidence. Consequently, they may also adequately describe the effects of possible interventions. Finally, we discuss the limitations of ABMs and put forward policy recommendations.

Indexed as

Models, StatisticalSystems AnalysisBetacoronavirusCoronavirus InfectionsCOVID-19HumansPandemicsPneumonia, ViralSARS-CoV-2agent-based modellingcausal inferencedifference-making evidencemechanismmechanistic evidenceSARS-CoV-2

Identifiers

PMID32820573
PMCPMC7461315

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.