Characterising information gains and losses when collecting multiple epidemic model outputs

IF 3 3区 医学 Q2 INFECTIOUS DISEASES
Katharine Sherratt , Ajitesh Srivastava , Kylie Ainslie , David E. Singh , Aymar Cublier , Maria Cristina Marinescu , Jesus Carretero , Alberto Cascajo Garcia , Nicolas Franco , Lander Willem , Steven Abrams , Christel Faes , Philippe Beutels , Niel Hens , Sebastian Müller , Billy Charlton , Ricardo Ewert , Sydney Paltra , Christian Rakow , Jakob Rehmann , Sebastian Funk
{"title":"Characterising information gains and losses when collecting multiple epidemic model outputs","authors":"Katharine Sherratt ,&nbsp;Ajitesh Srivastava ,&nbsp;Kylie Ainslie ,&nbsp;David E. Singh ,&nbsp;Aymar Cublier ,&nbsp;Maria Cristina Marinescu ,&nbsp;Jesus Carretero ,&nbsp;Alberto Cascajo Garcia ,&nbsp;Nicolas Franco ,&nbsp;Lander Willem ,&nbsp;Steven Abrams ,&nbsp;Christel Faes ,&nbsp;Philippe Beutels ,&nbsp;Niel Hens ,&nbsp;Sebastian Müller ,&nbsp;Billy Charlton ,&nbsp;Ricardo Ewert ,&nbsp;Sydney Paltra ,&nbsp;Christian Rakow ,&nbsp;Jakob Rehmann ,&nbsp;Sebastian Funk","doi":"10.1016/j.epidem.2024.100765","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Collaborative comparisons and combinations of epidemic models are used as policy-relevant evidence during epidemic outbreaks. In the process of collecting multiple model projections, such collaborations may gain or lose relevant information. Typically, modellers contribute a probabilistic summary at each time-step. We compared this to directly collecting simulated trajectories. We aimed to explore information on key epidemic quantities; ensemble uncertainty; and performance against data, investigating potential to continuously gain information from a single cross-sectional collection of model results.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>We compared projections from the European COVID-19 Scenario Modelling Hub. Five teams modelled incidence in Belgium, the Netherlands, and Spain. We compared July 2022 projections by incidence, peaks, and cumulative totals. We created a probabilistic ensemble drawn from all trajectories, and compared to ensembles from a median across each model’s quantiles, or a linear opinion pool. We measured the predictive accuracy of individual trajectories against observations, using this in a weighted ensemble. We repeated this sequentially against increasing weeks of observed data. We evaluated these ensembles to reflect performance with varying observed data.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>By collecting modelled trajectories, we showed policy-relevant epidemic characteristics. Trajectories contained a right-skewed distribution well represented by an ensemble of trajectories or a linear opinion pool, but not models’ quantile intervals. Ensembles weighted by performance typically retained the range of plausible incidence over time, and in some cases narrowed this by excluding some epidemic shapes.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>We observed several information gains from collecting modelled trajectories rather than quantile distributions, including potential for continuously updated information from a single model collection. The value of information gains and losses may vary with each collaborative effort’s aims, depending on the needs of projection users. Understanding the differing information potential of methods to collect model projections can support the accuracy, sustainability, and communication of collaborative infectious disease modelling efforts.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":49206,"journal":{"name":"Epidemics","volume":"47 ","pages":"Article 100765"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1755436524000264/pdfft?md5=a4a8d1d9343a34299a8c537abe1ab40f&pid=1-s2.0-S1755436524000264-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Epidemics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1755436524000264","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INFECTIOUS DISEASES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Collaborative comparisons and combinations of epidemic models are used as policy-relevant evidence during epidemic outbreaks. In the process of collecting multiple model projections, such collaborations may gain or lose relevant information. Typically, modellers contribute a probabilistic summary at each time-step. We compared this to directly collecting simulated trajectories. We aimed to explore information on key epidemic quantities; ensemble uncertainty; and performance against data, investigating potential to continuously gain information from a single cross-sectional collection of model results.

Methods

We compared projections from the European COVID-19 Scenario Modelling Hub. Five teams modelled incidence in Belgium, the Netherlands, and Spain. We compared July 2022 projections by incidence, peaks, and cumulative totals. We created a probabilistic ensemble drawn from all trajectories, and compared to ensembles from a median across each model’s quantiles, or a linear opinion pool. We measured the predictive accuracy of individual trajectories against observations, using this in a weighted ensemble. We repeated this sequentially against increasing weeks of observed data. We evaluated these ensembles to reflect performance with varying observed data.

Results

By collecting modelled trajectories, we showed policy-relevant epidemic characteristics. Trajectories contained a right-skewed distribution well represented by an ensemble of trajectories or a linear opinion pool, but not models’ quantile intervals. Ensembles weighted by performance typically retained the range of plausible incidence over time, and in some cases narrowed this by excluding some epidemic shapes.

Conclusions

We observed several information gains from collecting modelled trajectories rather than quantile distributions, including potential for continuously updated information from a single model collection. The value of information gains and losses may vary with each collaborative effort’s aims, depending on the needs of projection users. Understanding the differing information potential of methods to collect model projections can support the accuracy, sustainability, and communication of collaborative infectious disease modelling efforts.

收集多种流行病模型输出时的信息增益和损失特征
背景在流行病爆发期间,流行病模型的合作比较和组合被用作与政策相关的证据。在收集多个模型预测的过程中,这种合作可能会获得或失去相关信息。通常情况下,建模者会在每个时间步骤提供一个概率摘要。我们将此与直接收集模拟轨迹进行了比较。我们的目标是探索关键流行病数量的信息、集合的不确定性以及与数据对比的性能,研究从模型结果的单一横截面集合中持续获得信息的潜力。五个团队对比利时、荷兰和西班牙的发病率进行了建模。我们比较了 2022 年 7 月的发病率、峰值和累计总数预测。我们创建了一个从所有轨迹中提取的概率集合,并将其与从每个模型的量值中值或线性意见集合中提取的集合进行了比较。我们根据观测结果测量了单个轨迹的预测准确性,并将其用于加权集合。我们根据不断增加的观测数据周数依次重复这一过程。通过收集建模轨迹,我们发现了与政策相关的流行病特征。轨迹包含右偏分布,轨迹集合或线性意见池能很好地反映这种分布,但模型的量子区间却不能。结论我们观察到,收集模型轨迹而非量值分布可获得一些信息增益,包括从单一模型收集中获得持续更新信息的潜力。根据预测用户的需求,信息增益和损失的价值可能会随着每项合作目标的不同而变化。了解收集模型预测方法的不同信息潜力,有助于提高传染病建模合作的准确性、可持续性和交流。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Epidemics
Epidemics INFECTIOUS DISEASES-
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
7.90%
发文量
92
审稿时长
140 days
期刊介绍: Epidemics publishes papers on infectious disease dynamics in the broadest sense. Its scope covers both within-host dynamics of infectious agents and dynamics at the population level, particularly the interaction between the two. Areas of emphasis include: spread, transmission, persistence, implications and population dynamics of infectious diseases; population and public health as well as policy aspects of control and prevention; dynamics at the individual level; interaction with the environment, ecology and evolution of infectious diseases, as well as population genetics of infectious agents.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信