RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 General Framework for Evaluating Outbreak Prediction, Detection, and Annotation Algorithms
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2022.03.16.22272469
DO 10.1101/2022.03.16.22272469
A1 Auss Abbood
A1 Stéphane Ghozzi
YR 2022
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/03/21/2022.03.16.22272469.abstract
AB The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted and accelerated the use of algorithmic-decision support for public health. The latter’s potential impact and risk of bias and harm urgently call for scrutiny and evaluation standards. One example is the early detection of local infectious disease outbreaks. Whereas many statistical models have been proposed and disparate systems are routinely used, each tai-lored to specific data streams and use, no systematic evaluation strategy of their performance in a real-world context exists.One difficulty in evaluating outbreak prediction, detection, or annotation lies in the scales of different approaches: How to compare slow but fine-grained genetic clustering of individual samples with rapid but coarse anomaly detection based on aggregated syndromic reports? Or alarms generated for different, overlapping geographical regions or demographics?We propose a general, data-driven, user-centric framework for evaluating hetero-geneous outbreak algorithms. Discrete outbreak labels and case counts are defined on a custom data grid, associated target probabilities are then computed and compared with algorithm output. The latter is defined as discrete “signals” are generated for a number of grid cells (the finest available in the benchmarking data set) with different weights and prior outbreak information from which then estimated outbreak label probabilities are derived. The prediction performance is quantified through a series of metrics, including confusion matrix, regression scores, and mutual information. The dimensions of the data grid can be weighted by the user to reflect epidemiological criteria.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis study did not receive any specific funding.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesI confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).Yes I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesNo data is part of this work.