ArticlePloS one2024
Calibration verification for stochastic agent-based disease spread models.
Article in PloS one, 2024. 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
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Accurate disease spread modeling is crucial for identifying the severity of outbreaks and planning effective mitigation efforts. To be reliable when applied to new outbreaks, model calibration techniques must be robust. However, current methods frequently forgo calibration verification (a stand-alone process evaluating the calibration procedure) and instead use overall model validation (a process comparing calibrated model results to data) to check calibration processes, which may conceal errors in calibration. In this work, we develop a stochastic agent-based disease spread model to act as a testing environment as we test two calibration methods using simulation-based calibration, which is a synthetic data calibration verification method. The first calibration method is a Bayesian inference approach using an empirically-constructed likelihood and Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) sampling, while the second method is a likelihood-free approach using approximate Bayesian computation (ABC). Simulation-based calibration suggests that there are challenges with the empirical likelihood calculation used in the first calibration method in this context. These issues are alleviated in the ABC approach. Despite these challenges, we note that the first calibration method performs well in a synthetic data model validation test similar to those common in disease spread modeling literature. We conclude that stand-alone calibration verification using synthetic data may benefit epidemiological researchers in identifying model calibration challenges that may be difficult to identify with other commonly used model validation techniques.
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.