Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42691106›Full record

ArticlePLoS computational biology2026

The paradox of neglecting changes in behavior: How standard epidemic models misestimate both transmissibility and final epidemic size.

Binod Pant, Marko Lalovic, István Z Kiss, Mauricio Santillana

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS computational biology, 2026. 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.

Binod PantDepartment of Mathematics and Statistics, Mississippi State University, Jackson, Mississippi, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-8619-1861
Marko LalovicNetwork Science Institute, Northeastern University London, London, United Kingdom.
István Z KissNetwork Science Institute, Northeastern University London, London, United Kingdom.
Mauricio SantillanaMachine Intelligence Group for the Betterment of Health and the Environment, Northeastern University, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-4206-418X

Funding

CDC HHS CDC-RFA-FT-23-0069
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

During epidemic outbreaks, populations adapt their behavior in response to disease burden, fundamentally altering transmission dynamics. Despite this, most compartmental models assume constant contact rates throughout outbreaks. To quantify biases from this assumption, we fitted a baseline SEIRD model with constant transmission and three behavioral variants-incorporating mortality-driven transmission reduction via exponential, rational, and mixed functional forms-to COVID-19 mortality data from 20 selected US locations during the first pandemic wave (March-July 2020). All three behavioral models achieved a lower median normalized sum of squared error in at least 18 of 20 locations, and Bayesian model selection favored them in at least 18 of 20 locations. More importantly, we identified systematic biases when behavioral responses are ignored: the baseline model consistently underestimated the basic reproduction number (ℛ0) while paradoxically overestimating the final epidemic size. Median ℛ0 estimates from the behavioral models exceeded the baseline estimates across all 20 locations, yet baseline models predicted larger cumulative infection burdens. Controlled synthetic experiments-where mortality trajectories were generated from behavioral models with known parameters-confirmed these biases result from model misspecification rather than data quality or stochastic variation. We prove analytically that for any fixed ℛ0, the baseline model overestimates cumulative infections compared to behavioral models where mortality reduces transmission, regardless of functional form. This dual bias has potential implications for pandemic response: standard models may simultaneously underestimate pathogen contagiousness, which could contribute to delayed or insufficient early interventions while overestimating infection burden, which could bias planning for later epidemic phases. Our findings across 20 geographically diverse locations demonstrate that incorporating behavioral change substantially improves both model fit and estimation of epidemiological parameters relevant for public health policy.

Indexed as

COVID-19Epidemiological ModelsBasic Reproduction NumberBayes TheoremDisease OutbreaksEpidemicsHumansModels, BiologicalPandemicsSARS-CoV-2United States

Identifiers

PMID42691106
PMCPMC13568531

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.