基于COVID-19数据的行为流行病模型的比较评价

IF 9.1 1区 综合性期刊 Q1 MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES
Nicolò Gozzi, Nicola Perra, Alessandro Vespignani
{"title":"基于COVID-19数据的行为流行病模型的比较评价","authors":"Nicolò Gozzi, Nicola Perra, Alessandro Vespignani","doi":"10.1073/pnas.2421993122","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Characterizing the feedback linking human behavior and the transmission of infectious diseases (i.e., behavioral changes) remains a significant challenge in computational and mathematical epidemiology. Existing behavioral epidemic models often lack real-world data calibration and cross-model performance evaluation in both retrospective analysis and forecasting. In this study, we systematically compare the performance of three mechanistic behavioral epidemic models across nine geographies and two modeling tasks during the first wave of COVID-19, using various metrics. The first model, a Data-Driven Behavioral Feedback Model, incorporates behavioral changes by leveraging mobility data to capture variations in contact patterns. The second and third models are Analytical Behavioral Feedback Models, which simulate the feedback loop either through the explicit representation of different behavioral compartments within the population or by utilizing an effective nonlinear force of infection. Our results do not identify a single best model overall, as performance varies based on factors such as data availability, data quality, and the choice of performance metrics. While the Data-Driven Behavioral Feedback Model incorporates substantial real-time behavioral information, the Analytical Compartmental Behavioral Feedback Model often demonstrates superior or equivalent performance in both retrospective fitting and out-of-sample forecasts. Overall, our work offers guidance for future approaches and methodologies to better integrate behavioral changes into the modeling and projection of epidemic dynamics.</p>","PeriodicalId":20548,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America","volume":"122 24","pages":"e2421993122"},"PeriodicalIF":9.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12184516/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative evaluation of behavioral epidemic models using COVID-19 data.\",\"authors\":\"Nicolò Gozzi, Nicola Perra, Alessandro Vespignani\",\"doi\":\"10.1073/pnas.2421993122\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Characterizing the feedback linking human behavior and the transmission of infectious diseases (i.e., behavioral changes) remains a significant challenge in computational and mathematical epidemiology. Existing behavioral epidemic models often lack real-world data calibration and cross-model performance evaluation in both retrospective analysis and forecasting. In this study, we systematically compare the performance of three mechanistic behavioral epidemic models across nine geographies and two modeling tasks during the first wave of COVID-19, using various metrics. The first model, a Data-Driven Behavioral Feedback Model, incorporates behavioral changes by leveraging mobility data to capture variations in contact patterns. The second and third models are Analytical Behavioral Feedback Models, which simulate the feedback loop either through the explicit representation of different behavioral compartments within the population or by utilizing an effective nonlinear force of infection. Our results do not identify a single best model overall, as performance varies based on factors such as data availability, data quality, and the choice of performance metrics. While the Data-Driven Behavioral Feedback Model incorporates substantial real-time behavioral information, the Analytical Compartmental Behavioral Feedback Model often demonstrates superior or equivalent performance in both retrospective fitting and out-of-sample forecasts. Overall, our work offers guidance for future approaches and methodologies to better integrate behavioral changes into the modeling and projection of epidemic dynamics.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20548,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America\",\"volume\":\"122 24\",\"pages\":\"e2421993122\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":9.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12184516/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"103\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2421993122\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"综合性期刊\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/6/12 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America","FirstCategoryId":"103","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2421993122","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"综合性期刊","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/6/12 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

描述将人类行为与传染病传播联系起来的反馈(即行为变化)仍然是计算和数学流行病学中的一项重大挑战。现有的行为流行病模型在回顾性分析和预测中往往缺乏真实数据校准和跨模型性能评估。在本研究中,我们使用各种指标,系统地比较了9个地区的三种机制行为流行病模型和两项建模任务在第一波COVID-19期间的表现。第一个模型是数据驱动的行为反馈模型,它通过利用移动数据来捕捉接触模式的变化,从而结合行为变化。第二和第三种模型是分析行为反馈模型,它们通过明确表示人群中不同的行为间隔或利用有效的非线性感染力来模拟反馈回路。我们的结果并没有确定一个最佳模型,因为性能会根据数据可用性、数据质量和性能指标的选择等因素而变化。虽然数据驱动的行为反馈模型包含了大量的实时行为信息,但分析隔间行为反馈模型在回顾性拟合和样本外预测方面往往表现出优越或同等的性能。总的来说,我们的工作为未来的方法和方法提供了指导,以便更好地将行为变化纳入流行病动力学的建模和预测。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparative evaluation of behavioral epidemic models using COVID-19 data.

Characterizing the feedback linking human behavior and the transmission of infectious diseases (i.e., behavioral changes) remains a significant challenge in computational and mathematical epidemiology. Existing behavioral epidemic models often lack real-world data calibration and cross-model performance evaluation in both retrospective analysis and forecasting. In this study, we systematically compare the performance of three mechanistic behavioral epidemic models across nine geographies and two modeling tasks during the first wave of COVID-19, using various metrics. The first model, a Data-Driven Behavioral Feedback Model, incorporates behavioral changes by leveraging mobility data to capture variations in contact patterns. The second and third models are Analytical Behavioral Feedback Models, which simulate the feedback loop either through the explicit representation of different behavioral compartments within the population or by utilizing an effective nonlinear force of infection. Our results do not identify a single best model overall, as performance varies based on factors such as data availability, data quality, and the choice of performance metrics. While the Data-Driven Behavioral Feedback Model incorporates substantial real-time behavioral information, the Analytical Compartmental Behavioral Feedback Model often demonstrates superior or equivalent performance in both retrospective fitting and out-of-sample forecasts. Overall, our work offers guidance for future approaches and methodologies to better integrate behavioral changes into the modeling and projection of epidemic dynamics.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
19.00
自引率
0.90%
发文量
3575
审稿时长
2.5 months
期刊介绍: The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), a peer-reviewed journal of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), serves as an authoritative source for high-impact, original research across the biological, physical, and social sciences. With a global scope, the journal welcomes submissions from researchers worldwide, making it an inclusive platform for advancing scientific knowledge.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信