Limited data on infectious disease distribution exposes ambiguity in epidemic modeling choices

Fuente: arXiv
Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Di Domenico, Laura, Valdano, Eugenio, Colizza, Vittoria
Format: Preprint
Published: 2024
Subjects:
Online Access:
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1866909084605743104
author Di Domenico, Laura
Valdano, Eugenio
Colizza, Vittoria
author_facet Di Domenico, Laura
Valdano, Eugenio
Colizza, Vittoria
contents Traditional disease transmission models assume that the infectious period is exponentially distributed with a recovery rate fixed in time and across individuals. This assumption provides analytical and computational advantages, however it is often unrealistic. Efforts in modeling non-exponentially distributed infectious periods are either limited to special cases or lead to unsolvable models. Also, the link between empirical data (infectious period distribution) and the modeling needs (corresponding recovery rates) lacks a clear understanding. Here we introduce a mapping of an arbitrary distribution of infectious periods into a distribution of recovery rates. We show that the same infectious period distribution at the population level can be reproduced by two modeling schemes -- host-based and population-based -- depending on the individual response to the infection, and aggregated empirical data cannot easily discriminate the correct scheme. Besides being conceptually different, the two schemes also lead to different epidemic trajectories. Although sharing the same behavior close to the disease-free equilibrium, the host-based scheme deviates from the expected epidemic when reaching the endemic equilibrium of an SIS transmission model, while the population-based scheme turns out to be equivalent to assuming a homogeneous recovery rate. We show this through analytical computations and stochastic epidemic simulations on a contact network, using both generative network models and empirical contact data. It is therefore possible to reproduce heterogeneous infectious periods in network-based transmission models, however the resulting prevalence is sensitive to the modeling choice for the interpretation of the empirically collected data on infection duration. In absence of higher resolution data, studies should acknowledge such deviations in the epidemic predictions.
format Preprint
id arxiv_https___arxiv_org_abs_2401_15190
institution arXiv
publishDate 2024
record_format arxiv
spellingShingle Limited data on infectious disease distribution exposes ambiguity in epidemic modeling choices
Di Domenico, Laura
Valdano, Eugenio
Colizza, Vittoria
Populations and Evolution
Physics and Society
Traditional disease transmission models assume that the infectious period is exponentially distributed with a recovery rate fixed in time and across individuals. This assumption provides analytical and computational advantages, however it is often unrealistic. Efforts in modeling non-exponentially distributed infectious periods are either limited to special cases or lead to unsolvable models. Also, the link between empirical data (infectious period distribution) and the modeling needs (corresponding recovery rates) lacks a clear understanding. Here we introduce a mapping of an arbitrary distribution of infectious periods into a distribution of recovery rates. We show that the same infectious period distribution at the population level can be reproduced by two modeling schemes -- host-based and population-based -- depending on the individual response to the infection, and aggregated empirical data cannot easily discriminate the correct scheme. Besides being conceptually different, the two schemes also lead to different epidemic trajectories. Although sharing the same behavior close to the disease-free equilibrium, the host-based scheme deviates from the expected epidemic when reaching the endemic equilibrium of an SIS transmission model, while the population-based scheme turns out to be equivalent to assuming a homogeneous recovery rate. We show this through analytical computations and stochastic epidemic simulations on a contact network, using both generative network models and empirical contact data. It is therefore possible to reproduce heterogeneous infectious periods in network-based transmission models, however the resulting prevalence is sensitive to the modeling choice for the interpretation of the empirically collected data on infection duration. In absence of higher resolution data, studies should acknowledge such deviations in the epidemic predictions.
title Limited data on infectious disease distribution exposes ambiguity in epidemic modeling choices
topic Populations and Evolution
Physics and Society
url https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.15190