Geology topics

William J.M. Probert

Publications and source records attributed to William J.M. Probert.

6 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2024

When do we need multiple infectious disease models? Agreement between projection rank and magnitude in a multi-model setting

Mathematical models are useful for public health planning and response to infectious disease threats. However, different models can provide differing results, which can hamper decision making if not synthesized appropriately. To address this challenge, multi-model hubs convene independent modeling groups to generate ensembles, known to provide more accurate predictions of future outcomes. Yet, these hubs are resource intensive, and how many models are sufficient in a hub is not known. Here, we compare the benefit of predictions from multiple models in different contexts: (1) decision settings that depend on predictions of quantitative outcomes (e.g., hospital capacity planning), where assessments of the benefits of multi-model ensembles have largely focused; and (2) decisions settings that require the ranking of alternative epidemic scenarios (e.g., comparing outcomes under multiple possible interventions and biological uncertainties). We develop a mathematical framework to mimic a multi-model prediction setting, and use this framework to quantify how frequently predictions from different models agree. We further explore multi-model agreement using real-world, empirical data from 14 rounds of U.S. COVID-19 Scenario Modeling Hub projections. Our results suggest that the value of multiple models could be different in different decision contexts, and if only a few models are available, focusing on the rank of alternative epidemic scenarios could be more robust than focusing on quantitative outcomes. Although additional exploration of the sufficient number of models for different contexts is still needed, our results indicate that it may be possible to identify decision contexts where it is robust to rely on fewer models, a finding that can inform the use of modeling resources during future public health crises.

Epidemics↗

USGS2024

Scenario design for infectious disease projections: Integrating concepts from decision analysis and experimental design

Across many fields, scenario modeling has become an important tool for exploring long-term projections and how they might depend on potential interventions and critical uncertainties, with relevance to both decision makers and scientists. In the past decade, and especially during the COVID-19 pandemic, the field of epidemiology has seen substantial growth in the use of scenario projections. Multiple scenarios are often projected at the same time, allowing important comparisons that can guide the choice of intervention, the prioritization of research topics, or public communication. The design of the scenarios is central to their ability to inform important questions. In this paper, we draw on the fields of decision analysis and statistical design of experiments to propose a framework for scenario design in epidemiology, with relevance also to other fields. We identify six different fundamental purposes for scenario designs (decision making, sensitivity analysis, situational awareness, horizon scanning, forecasting, and value of information) and discuss how those purposes guide the structure of scenarios. We discuss other aspects of the content and process of scenario design, broadly for all settings and specifically for multi-model ensemble projections. As an illustrative case study, we examine the first 17 rounds of scenarios from the U.S. COVID-19 Scenario Modeling Hub, then reflect on future advancements that could improve the design of scenarios in epidemiological settings.

Epidemics↗

USGS2023

Multiple models for outbreak decision support in the face of uncertainty

Policymakers must make management decisions despite incomplete knowledge and conflicting model projections. Little guidance exists for the rapid, representative, and unbiased collection of policy-relevant scientific input from independent modeling teams. Integrating approaches from decision analysis, expert judgment, and model aggregation, we convened multiple modeling teams to evaluate COVID-19 reopening strategies for a mid-sized United States county early in the pandemic. Projections from seventeen distinct models were inconsistent in magnitude but highly consistent in ranking interventions. The 6-mo-ahead aggregate projections were well in line with observed outbreaks in mid-sized US counties. The aggregate results showed that up to half the population could be infected with full workplace reopening, while workplace restrictions reduced median cumulative infections by 82%. Rankings of interventions were consistent across public health objectives, but there was a strong trade-off between public health outcomes and duration of workplace closures, and no win-win intermediate reopening strategies were identified. Between-model variation was high; the aggregate results thus provide valuable risk quantification for decision making. This approach can be applied to the evaluation of management interventions in any setting where models are used to inform decision making. This case study demonstrated the utility of our approach and was one of several multimodel efforts that laid the groundwork for the COVID-19 Scenario Modeling Hub, which has provided multiple rounds of real-time scenario projections for situational awareness and decision making to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention since December 2020.

PNAS↗

USGS2023

Context-dependent representation of within- and between-model uncertainty: Aggregating probabilistic predictions in infectious disease epidemiology

Probabilistic predictions support public health planning and decision making, especially in infectious disease emergencies. Aggregating outputs from multiple models yields more robust predictions of outcomes and associated uncertainty. While the selection of an aggregation method can be guided by retrospective performance evaluations, this is not always possible. For example, if predictions are conditional on assumptions about how the future will unfold (e.g. possible interventions), these assumptions may never materialize, precluding any direct comparison between predictions and observations. Here, we summarize literature on aggregating probabilistic predictions, illustrate various methods for infectious disease predictions via simulation, and present a strategy for choosing an aggregation method when empirical validation cannot be used. We focus on the linear opinion pool (LOP) and Vincent average, common methods that make different assumptions about between-prediction uncertainty. We contend that assumptions of the aggregation method should align with a hypothesis about how uncertainty is expressed within and between predictions from different sources. The LOP assumes that between-prediction uncertainty is meaningful and should be retained, while the Vincent average assumes that between-prediction uncertainty is akin to sampling error and should not be preserved. We provide an R package for implementation. Given the rising importance of multi-model infectious disease hubs, our work provides useful guidance on aggregation and a deeper understanding of the benefits and risks of different approaches.

Journal of the Royal Society Interface↗

USGS2022

Vote-processing rules for combining control recommendations from multiple models

Mathematical modelling is used during disease outbreaks to compare control interventions. Using multiple models, the best method to combine model recommendations is unclear. Existing methods weight model projections, then rank control interventions using the combined projections, presuming model outputs are directly comparable. However, the way each model represents the epidemiological system will vary. We apply electoral vote-processing rules to combine model-generated rankings of interventions. Combining rankings of interventions, instead of combining model projections, avoids assuming that projections are comparable as all comparisons of projections are made within each model. We investigate four rules: First-past-the-post, Alternative Vote (AV), Coombs Method and Borda Count. We investigate rule sensitivity by including models that favour only one action or including those that rank interventions randomly. We investigate two case studies: the 2014 Ebola outbreak in West Africa (37 compartmental models) and a hypothetical foot-and-mouth disease outbreak in UK (four individual-based models). The Coombs Method was least susceptible to adding models that favoured a single action, Borda Count and AV were most susceptible to adding models that ranked interventions randomly. Each rule chose the same intervention as when ranking interventions by mean projections, suggesting that combining rankings provides similar recommendations with fewer assumptions about model comparability.

Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A:↗

USGS2021

Synergistic interventions to control COVID-19: Mass testing and isolation mitigates reliance on distancing

Stay-at-home orders and shutdowns of non-essential businesses are powerful, but socially costly, tools to control the pandemic spread of SARS-CoV-2. Mass testing strategies, which rely on widely administered frequent and rapid diagnostics to identify and isolate infected individuals, could be a potentially less disruptive management strategy, particularly where vaccine access is limited. In this paper, we assess the extent to which mass testing and isolation strategies can reduce reliance on socially costly non-pharmaceutical interventions, such as distancing and shutdowns. We develop a multi-compartmental model of SARS-CoV-2 transmission incorporating both preventative non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) and testing and isolation to evaluate their combined effect on public health outcomes. Our model is designed to be a policy-guiding tool that captures important realities of the testing system, including constraints on test administration and non-random testing allocation. We show how strategic changes in the characteristics of the testing system, including test administration, test delays, and test sensitivity, can reduce reliance on preventative NPIs without compromising public health outcomes in the future. The lowest NPI levels are possible only when many tests are administered and test delays are short, given limited immunity in the population. Reducing reliance on NPIs is highly dependent on the ability of a testing program to identify and isolate unreported, asymptomatic infections. Changes in NPIs, including the intensity of lockdowns and stay at home orders, should be coordinated with increases in testing to ensure epidemic control; otherwise small additional lifting of these NPIs can lead to dramatic increases in infections, hospitalizations and deaths. Importantly, our results can be used to guide ramp-up of testing capacity in outbreak settings, allow for the flexible design of combined interventions based on social context, and inform future cost-benefit analyses to identify efficient pandemic management strategies.

PLOS Computational Biology↗