Maziarz Mariusz, Zach Martin
Interdisciplinary Centre for Ethics, Jagiellonian University, Kraków, Poland.
Institute of Philosophy, Jagiellonian University, Kraków, Poland.
J Eval Clin Pract. 2020 Oct;26(5):1352-1360. doi: 10.1111/jep.13459. Epub 2020 Aug 21.
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.
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.
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.
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.
我们的目的是从方法学角度评估基于主体的新冠疫情流行病学模型(ABMs)。疫情的迅速蔓延需要就缓解措施做出快速决策。然而,诸如强制保持社交距离以及关闭学校或工作场所等非药物干预措施有效性的证据却很匮乏:很少有观察性研究采用准实验研究设计,而且进行随机对照试验似乎并不可行。此外,鉴于严重急性呼吸综合征(SARS)和中东呼吸综合征(MERS)等先前冠状病毒疫情中的病原体与新冠病毒在传染性方面存在显著差异,其证据缺乏外部有效性。为解决因2019冠状病毒病(COVID - 19)而出现的紧迫政策问题,流行病学家构建了众多模型,从简单的 compartments 模型到高度先进的基于主体的模型。这些模型因存在简化处理且其假设缺乏实证支持而受到批评。
为回应这些质疑并从方法学角度评估流行病学ABMs,我们将AceMod(澳大利亚新冠疫情模型)作为建模实践的案例研究。
我们的示例表明,尽管流行病学ABMs存在各种简化情况,但社交互动和新冠病毒传播的关键特征得到了足够准确的呈现。之所以如此,是因为这些建模者将实证结果作为构建主体所遵循的建模假设和规则的输入;并且他们使用校准来确定对标变量的充分性。
鉴于此,我们认为最佳的流行病学ABMs是实际机制模型,能提供机制性证据和差异制造证据。因此,它们或许也能充分描述可能干预措施的效果。最后,我们讨论了ABMs的局限性并提出了政策建议。