↓ Skip to main content

Noise Is Not Error: Detecting Parametric Heterogeneity Between Epidemiologic Time Series

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Microbiology, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (79th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
26 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Noise Is Not Error: Detecting Parametric Heterogeneity Between Epidemiologic Time Series
Published in
Frontiers in Microbiology, July 2018
DOI 10.3389/fmicb.2018.01529
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ethan O. Romero-Severson, Ruy M. Ribeiro, Mario Castro

Abstract

Mathematical models play a central role in epidemiology. For example, models unify heterogeneous data into a single framework, suggest experimental designs, and generate hypotheses. Traditional methods based on deterministic assumptions, such as ordinary differential equations (ODE), have been successful in those scenarios. However, noise caused by random variations rather than true differences is an intrinsic feature of the cellular/molecular/social world. Time series data from patients (in the case of clinical science) or number of infections (in the case of epidemics) can vary due to both intrinsic differences or incidental fluctuations. The use of traditional fitting methods for ODEs applied to noisy problems implies that deviation from some trend can only be due to error or parametric heterogeneity, that is noise can be wrongly classified as parametric heterogeneity. This leads to unstable predictions and potentially misguided policies or research programs. In this paper, we quantify the ability of ODEs under different hypotheses (fixed or random effects) to capture individual differences in the underlying data. We explore a simple (exactly solvable) example displaying an initial exponential growth by comparing state-of-the-art stochastic fitting and traditional least squares approximations. We also provide a potential approach for determining the limitations and risks of traditional fitting methodologies. Finally, we discuss the implications of our results for the interpretation of data from the 2014-2015 Ebola epidemic in Africa.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 26 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 19%
Student > Master 4 15%
Other 3 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 12%
Other 2 8%
Unknown 6 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 12%
Chemical Engineering 2 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 8%
Engineering 2 8%
Other 5 19%
Unknown 10 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 February 2020.
All research outputs
#3,859,850
of 23,636,051 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Microbiology
#3,670
of 26,156 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#73,147
of 327,755 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Microbiology
#151
of 744 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,636,051 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 26,156 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 327,755 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 744 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.