TY - JOUR T1 - The effect of the definition of ‘pandemic’ on quantitative assessments of infectious disease outbreak risk JF - medRxiv DO - 10.1101/2020.10.02.20205682 SP - 2020.10.02.20205682 AU - Benjamin J Singer AU - Robin N Thompson AU - Michael B Bonsall Y1 - 2020/01/01 UR - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/10/07/2020.10.02.20205682.abstract N2 - In the early stages of an outbreak, the term ‘pandemic’ can be used to communicate about infectious disease risk, particularly by those who wish to encourage a large-scale public health response. However, the term lacks a widely accepted quantitative definition. We show that, under alternative quantitative definitions of ‘pandemic’, an epidemiological metapopulation model produces different estimates of the probability of a pandemic. Critically, we show that using different definitions alters the projected effects on the pandemic risk of key parameters such as inter-regional travel rates, degree of pre-existing immunity, and heterogeneity of transmission rates between regions. Our analysis provides a foundation for understanding the scientific importance of precise language when discussing pandemic risk, illustrating how alternate definitions affect the conclusions of modelling studies. This serves to highlight that those working on pandemic preparedness must remain alert to the variability in the use of the term ‘pandemic’, and provide specific quantitative definitions when undertaking one of the types of analysis that we show to be sensitive to the pandemic definition.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis work was supported by funding from the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) [grant number BB/M011224/1]. This research was funded by Christ Church, Oxford, via a Junior Research Fellowship (RNT)Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:This research was carried out at the University of Oxford, and complied with that university's ethics codes.All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as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).YesI 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.YesCode is available on the Open Science Framework at https://osf.io/z52te/. https://osf.io/z52te/ ER -