ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2023
Inter-rater reliability of the Infectious Disease Modeling Reproducibility Checklist (IDMRC) as applied to COVID-19 computational modeling research.
Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Infectious disease computational modeling studies have been widely published during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, yet they have limited reproducibility. Developed through an iterative testing process with multiple reviewers, the Infectious Disease Modeling Reproducibility Checklist (IDMRC) enumerates the minimal elements necessary to support reproducible infectious disease computational modeling publications. The primary objective of this study was to assess the reliability of the IDMRC and to identify which reproducibility elements were unreported in a sample of COVID-19 computational modeling publications. Methods: Four reviewers used the IDMRC to assess 46 preprint and peer reviewed COVID-19 modeling studies published between March 13 Results: Questions related to the computational environment (mean κ = 0.90, range = 0.90-0.90), analytical software (mean κ = 0.74, range = 0.68-0.82), model description (mean κ = 0.71, range = 0.58-0.84), model implementation (mean κ = 0.68, range = 0.39-0.86), and experimental protocol (mean κ = 0.63, range = 0.58-0.69) had moderate or greater (κ > 0.41) inter-rater reliability. Questions related to data had the lowest values (mean κ = 0.37, range = 0.23-0.59). Reviewers ranked similar papers in the upper and lower quartiles based on the proportion of reproducibility elements each paper reported. While over 70% of the publications provided data used in their models, less than 30% provided the model implementation. Conclusions: The IDMRC is the first comprehensive, quality-assessed tool for guiding researchers in reporting reproducible infectious disease computational modeling studies. The inter-rater reliability assessment found that most scores were characterized by moderate or greater agreement. These results suggests that the IDMRC might be used to provide reliable assessments of the potential for reproducibility of published infectious disease modeling publications. Results of this evaluation identified opportunities for improvement to the model implementation and data questions that can further improve the reliability of the checklist.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.