Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36037156›Full record

ArticlePloS one2022

CALMS: Modelling the long-term health and economic impact of Covid-19 using agent-based simulation.

Kate Mintram, Anastasia Anagnostou, Nana Anokye, Edward Okine, Derek Groen, Arindam Saha, Nura Abubakar, Tasin Islam, Habiba Daroge, Maziar Ghorbani and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
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

12 authors.

Kate MintramModelling and Simulation Group, Department of Computer Science, Brunel University London, Uxbridge, London, United Kingdom.
Anastasia AnagnostouModelling and Simulation Group, Department of Computer Science, Brunel University London, Uxbridge, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-3397-8307
Nana AnokyeGlobal Public Health, Department of Health Sciences, Brunel University London, Uxbridge, London, United Kingdom.
Edward OkineGlobal Public Health, Department of Health Sciences, Brunel University London, Uxbridge, London, United Kingdom.
Derek GroenModelling and Simulation Group, Department of Computer Science, Brunel University London, Uxbridge, London, United Kingdom.
Arindam SahaModelling and Simulation Group, Department of Computer Science, Brunel University London, Uxbridge, London, United Kingdom.
Nura AbubakarModelling and Simulation Group, Department of Computer Science, Brunel University London, Uxbridge, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-4216-3057
Tasin IslamModelling and Simulation Group, Department of Computer Science, Brunel University London, Uxbridge, London, United Kingdom.
Habiba DarogeModelling and Simulation Group, Department of Computer Science, Brunel University London, Uxbridge, London, United Kingdom.
Maziar GhorbaniDepartment of Electronic and Computer Engineering, Brunel University London, Uxbridge, London, United Kingdom.
Yani XueModelling and Simulation Group, Department of Computer Science, Brunel University London, Uxbridge, London, United Kingdom.
Simon J E TaylorModelling and Simulation Group, Department of Computer Science, Brunel University London, Uxbridge, London, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We present our agent-based CoronAvirus Lifelong Modelling and Simulation (CALMS) model that aspires to predict the lifelong impacts of Covid-19 on the health and economy of a population. CALMS considers individual characteristics as well as comorbidities in calculating the risk of infection and severe disease. We conduct two sets of experiments aiming at demonstrating the validity and capabilities of CALMS. We run simulations retrospectively and validate the model outputs against hospitalisations, ICU admissions and fatalities in a UK population for the period between March and September 2020. We then run simulations for the lifetime of the cohort applying a variety of targeted intervention strategies and compare their effectiveness against the baseline scenario where no intervention is applied. Four scenarios are simulated with targeted vaccination programmes and periodic lockdowns. Vaccinations are targeted first at individuals based on their age and second at vulnerable individuals based on their health status. Periodic lockdowns, triggered by hospitalisations, are tested with and without vaccination programme in place. Our results demonstrate that periodic lockdowns achieve reductions in hospitalisations, ICU admissions and fatalities of 6-8% compared to the baseline scenario, with an associated intervention cost of £173 million per 1,000 people and targeted vaccination programmes achieve reductions in hospitalisations, ICU admissions and fatalities of 89-90%, compared to the baseline scenario, with an associated intervention cost of £51,924 per 1,000 people. We conclude that periodic lockdowns alone are ineffective at reducing health-related outputs over the long-term and that vaccination programmes which target only the clinically vulnerable are sufficient in providing healthcare protection for the population as a whole.

Indexed as

COVID-19Communicable Disease ControlHospitalizationHumansRetrospective StudiesVaccination

Identifiers

PMID36037156
PMCPMC9423607

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.