Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37873220›Full record

ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2023

Some principles for using epidemiologic study results to parameterize transmission models.

Keya Joshi, Rebecca Kahn, Christopher Boyer, Marc Lipsitch

Abstract readPreprint
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Keya JoshiCenter for Communicable Disease Dynamics, Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, 02115 Boston, Massachusetts.
Rebecca KahnCenter for Communicable Disease Dynamics, Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, 02115 Boston, Massachusetts.
Christopher BoyerCenter for Communicable Disease Dynamics, Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, 02115 Boston, Massachusetts.
Marc LipsitchCenter for Communicable Disease Dynamics, Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, 02115 Boston, Massachusetts.

Funding

Epidemiology of Infectious Diseases and BiodefenseT32AI007535 · NIAID · HARVARD UNIVERSITY (SCH OF PUBLIC HLTH) · PI GRAD, YONATAN H, MURRAY, MEGAN B · 1998 to 2025
$4.8M
Casual, Statistical and Mathematical Modeling with Serologic DataU01CA261277 · NCI · HARVARD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH · PI HANAGE, WILLIAM, LIPSITCH, MARC · 2020 to 2023
$2.8M
Accounting for Hidden Bias in Vaccine Studies: A Negative Control FrameworkR01GM139926 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI SHI, XU, TCHETGEN TCHETGEN, ERIC JOEL · 2021 to 2024
$1.5M
NCI NIH HHS U01 CA261277NIAID NIH HHS T32 AI007535NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM139926
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Infectious disease models, including individual based models (IBMs), can be used to inform public health response. For these models to be effective, accurate estimates of key parameters describing the natural history of infection and disease are needed. However, obtaining these parameter estimates from epidemiological studies is not always straightforward. We aim to 1) outline challenges to parameter estimation that arise due to common biases found in epidemiologic studies and 2) describe the conditions under which careful consideration in the design and analysis of the study could allow us to obtain a causal estimate of the parameter of interest. In this discussion we do not focus on issues of generalizability and transportability. Methods: Using examples from the COVID-19 pandemic, we first identify different ways of parameterizing IBMs and describe ideal study designs to estimate these parameters. Given real-world limitations, we describe challenges in parameter estimation due to confounding and conditioning on a post-exposure observation. We then describe ideal study designs that can lead to unbiased parameter estimates. We finally discuss additional challenges in estimating progression probabilities and the consequences of these challenges. Results: Causal estimation can only occur if we are able to accurately measure and control for all confounding variables that create non-causal associations between the exposure and outcome of interest, which is sometimes challenging given the nature of the variables we need to measure. In the absence of perfect control, non-causal parameter estimates should still be used, as sometimes they are the best available information we have. Conclusions: Identifying which estimates from epidemiologic studies correspond to the quantities needed to parameterize disease models, and determining whether these parameters have causal interpretations, can inform future study designs and improve inferences from infectious disease models. Understanding the way in which biases can arise in parameter estimation can inform sensitivity analyses or help with interpretation of results if the magnitude and direction of the bias is understood.

Identifiers

PMID37873220
PMCPMC10593029

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.