Extending the susceptible‐exposed‐infected‐removed (SEIR) model to handle the false negative rate and symptom‐based administration of COVID‐19 diagnostic tests: SEIR‐fansy

  1. Ritwik Bhaduri
  2. Ritoban Kundu
  3. Soumik Purkayastha
  4. Michael Kleinsasser
  5. Lauren J. Beesley
  6. Bhramar Mukherjee
  7. Jyotishka Datta

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

False negative rates of severe acute respiratory coronavirus 2 diagnostic tests, together with selection bias due to prioritized testing can result in inaccurate modeling of COVID‐19 transmission dynamics based on reported “case” counts. We propose an extension of the widely used Susceptible‐Exposed‐Infected‐Removed (SEIR) model that accounts for misclassification error and selection bias, and derive an analytic expression for the basic reproduction number as a function of false negative rates of the diagnostic tests and selection probabilities for getting tested. Analyzing data from the first two waves of the pandemic in India, we show that correcting for misclassification and selection leads to more accurate prediction in a test sample. We provide estimates of undetected infections and deaths between April 1, 2020 and August 31, 2021. At the end of the first wave in India, the estimated under‐reporting factor for cases was at 11.1 (95% CI: 10.7,11.5) and for deaths at 3.58 (95% CI: 3.5,3.66) as of February 1, 2021, while they change to 19.2 (95% CI: 17.9, 19.9) and 4.55 (95% CI: 4.32, 4.68) as of July 1, 2021. Equivalently, 9.0% (95% CI: 8.7%, 9.3%) and 5.2% (95% CI: 5.0%, 5.6%) of total estimated infections were reported on these two dates, while 27.9% (95% CI: 27.3%, 28.6%) and 22% (95% CI: 21.4%, 23.1%) of estimated total deaths were reported. Extensive simulation studies demonstrate the effect of misclassification and selection on estimation of and prediction of future infections. A R‐package SEIRfansy is developed for broader dissemination.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1002/sim.9357
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.09.24.20200238: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    NIH rigor criteria are not applicable to paper type.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    Results from OddPub: Thank you for sharing your code.

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2020.09.24.20200238v1 on medRxiv