Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38665405›Full record

ArticleCommunications physics2023

Intrinsic randomness in epidemic modelling beyond statistical uncertainty.

Matthew J Penn, Daniel J Laydon, Joseph Penn, Charles Whittaker, Christian Morgenstern, Oliver Ratmann, Swapnil Mishra, Mikko S Pakkanen, Christl A Donnelly, Samir Bhatt

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Communications physics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Incorporating testing volume into estimation of effective reproduction number dynamics.Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A, (Statistics in Society) · 2024
    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

10 authors.

Matthew J PennUniversity of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8682-5393
Daniel J LaydonImperial College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4270-3321
Joseph PennUniversity of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Charles WhittakerImperial College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5003-2575
Christian MorgensternImperial College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-3735-1130
Oliver RatmannImperial College London, London, UK.
Swapnil MishraUniversity of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Mikko S PakkanenImperial College London, London, UK.
Christl A DonnellyUniversity of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0195-2463
Samir BhattImperial College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0891-4611

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/R015600/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Uncertainty can be classified as either aleatoric (intrinsic randomness) or epistemic (imperfect knowledge of parameters). The majority of frameworks assessing infectious disease risk consider only epistemic uncertainty. We only ever observe a single epidemic, and therefore cannot empirically determine aleatoric uncertainty. Here, we characterise both epistemic and aleatoric uncertainty using a time-varying general branching process. Our framework explicitly decomposes aleatoric variance into mechanistic components, quantifying the contribution to uncertainty produced by each factor in the epidemic process, and how these contributions vary over time. The aleatoric variance of an outbreak is itself a renewal equation where past variance affects future variance. We find that, superspreading is not necessary for substantial uncertainty, and profound variation in outbreak size can occur even without overdispersion in the offspring distribution (i.e. the distribution of the number of secondary infections an infected person produces). Aleatoric forecasting uncertainty grows dynamically and rapidly, and so forecasting using only epistemic uncertainty is a significant underestimate. Therefore, failure to account for aleatoric uncertainty will ensure that policymakers are misled about the substantially higher true extent of potential risk. We demonstrate our method, and the extent to which potential risk is underestimated, using two historical examples.

Indexed as

Applied mathematicsSARS-CoV-2Statistics

Identifiers

PMID38665405
PMCPMC11041706

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.