Detail
Article
Online article
FT
Medvik - BMC
  • Something wrong with this record ?

Agent-based modelling for SARS-CoV-2 epidemic prediction and intervention assessment: A methodological appraisal

M. Maziarz, M. Zach,

. 2020 ; 26 (5) : 1352-1360. [pub] 20200821

Language English Country Great Britain

Document type Journal Article, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Grant support
GA ČR 19-04236S Grantová Agentura České Republiky - International
805498 European Research Council, European Union's Horizon 2020 - International

BACKGROUND: Our purpose is to assess epidemiological agent-based models-or ABMs-of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic methodologically. The rapid spread of the outbreak requires fast-paced decision-making regarding mitigation measures. However, the evidence for the efficacy of non-pharmaceutical interventions such as imposed social distancing and school or workplace closures is scarce: few observational studies use quasi-experimental research designs, and conducting randomized controlled trials seems infeasible. Additionally, evidence from the previous coronavirus outbreaks of SARS and MERS lacks external validity, given the significant differences in contagiousness of those pathogens relative to SARS-CoV-2. To address the pressing policy questions that have emerged as a result of COVID-19, epidemiologists have produced numerous models that range from simple compartmental models to highly advanced agent-based models. These models have been criticized for involving simplifications and lacking empirical support for their assumptions. METHODS: To address these voices and methodologically appraise epidemiological ABMs, we consider AceMod (the model of the COVID-19 epidemic in Australia) as a case study of the modelling practice. RESULTS: Our example shows that, although epidemiological ABMs involve simplifications of various sorts, the key characteristics of social interactions and the spread of SARS-CoV-2 are represented sufficiently accurately. This is the case because these modellers treat empirical results as inputs for constructing modelling assumptions and rules that the agents follow; and they use calibration to assert the adequacy to benchmark variables. CONCLUSIONS: Given this, we claim that the best epidemiological ABMs are models of actual mechanisms and deliver both mechanistic and difference-making evidence. Consequently, they may also adequately describe the effects of possible interventions. Finally, we discuss the limitations of ABMs and put forward policy recommendations.

References provided by Crossref.org

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc20027777
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20210114152338.0
007      
ta
008      
210105s2020 xxk f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.1111/jep.13459 $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)32820573
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a xxk
100    1_
$a Maziarz, Mariusz $u Interdisciplinary Centre for Ethics, Jagiellonian University, Kraków, Poland. Institute of Philosophy, Jagiellonian University, Kraków, Poland.
245    10
$a Agent-based modelling for SARS-CoV-2 epidemic prediction and intervention assessment: A methodological appraisal / $c M. Maziarz, M. Zach,
520    9_
$a BACKGROUND: Our purpose is to assess epidemiological agent-based models-or ABMs-of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic methodologically. The rapid spread of the outbreak requires fast-paced decision-making regarding mitigation measures. However, the evidence for the efficacy of non-pharmaceutical interventions such as imposed social distancing and school or workplace closures is scarce: few observational studies use quasi-experimental research designs, and conducting randomized controlled trials seems infeasible. Additionally, evidence from the previous coronavirus outbreaks of SARS and MERS lacks external validity, given the significant differences in contagiousness of those pathogens relative to SARS-CoV-2. To address the pressing policy questions that have emerged as a result of COVID-19, epidemiologists have produced numerous models that range from simple compartmental models to highly advanced agent-based models. These models have been criticized for involving simplifications and lacking empirical support for their assumptions. METHODS: To address these voices and methodologically appraise epidemiological ABMs, we consider AceMod (the model of the COVID-19 epidemic in Australia) as a case study of the modelling practice. RESULTS: Our example shows that, although epidemiological ABMs involve simplifications of various sorts, the key characteristics of social interactions and the spread of SARS-CoV-2 are represented sufficiently accurately. This is the case because these modellers treat empirical results as inputs for constructing modelling assumptions and rules that the agents follow; and they use calibration to assert the adequacy to benchmark variables. CONCLUSIONS: Given this, we claim that the best epidemiological ABMs are models of actual mechanisms and deliver both mechanistic and difference-making evidence. Consequently, they may also adequately describe the effects of possible interventions. Finally, we discuss the limitations of ABMs and put forward policy recommendations.
650    _2
$a Betacoronavirus $7 D000073640
650    _2
$a COVID-19 $7 D000086382
650    _2
$a koronavirové infekce $x epidemiologie $7 D018352
650    _2
$a lidé $7 D006801
650    12
$a statistické modely $7 D015233
650    _2
$a pandemie $7 D058873
650    _2
$a virová pneumonie $x epidemiologie $7 D011024
650    _2
$a SARS-CoV-2 $7 D000086402
650    12
$a systémová analýza $7 D013597
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
655    _2
$a práce podpořená grantem $7 D013485
700    1_
$a Zach, Martin $u Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies, Faculty of Arts, Charles University in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic.
773    0_
$w MED00006122 $t Journal of evaluation in clinical practice $x 1365-2753 $g Roč. 26, č. 5 (2020), s. 1352-1360
856    41
$u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32820573 $y Pubmed
910    __
$a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y a $z 0
990    __
$a 20210105 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20210114152336 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 1608112 $s 1118957
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC
BMC    __
$a 2020 $b 26 $c 5 $d 1352-1360 $e 20200821 $i 1365-2753 $m Journal of evaluation in clinical practice $n J Eval Clin Pract $x MED00006122
GRA    __
$a GA ČR 19-04236S $p Grantová Agentura České Republiky $2 International
GRA    __
$a 805498 $p European Research Council, European Union's Horizon 2020 $2 International
LZP    __
$a Pubmed-20210105

Find record

Citation metrics

Loading data ...

Archiving options

Loading data ...