Biases in Attribution Methods for Norovirus and Rotavirus Diarrhea
Discuss this preprint
Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?Listed in
This article is not in any list yet, why not save it to one of your lists.Abstract
Background
The estimate of diarrhea burden attributed to a specific enteric pathogen—the population attributable fraction (PAF)—depends on the specific calculation method. Two conventional methods are commonly used to estimate the PAF for enteric infections: the “detection-as-etiology” (DE) method, which defines the PAF as the pathogen prevalence in diarrheal cases; and the “odds-ratio” (OR) method, which expresses the PAF as a function of the OR between pathogen detection and diarrhea. A third, less frequently used method uses the risk ratio (RR) to quantify the strength of infection.
Methods
We compared each conventional PAF (DE, OR, or RR PAF) to a model-based (MB) PAF, derived from a transmission model of enteric infection, and defined bias as the crude difference from this “true” MB PAF. We fitted the transmission model to site-specific qPCR data for norovirus and rotavirus detection from MAL-ED (an eight-country birth cohort studying enteric infections) and used the equilibrium states to calculate the MB PAF.
Results
For both pathogens, the OR and RR biases were small at all sites (ranging from -5% to +3%), whereas the DE method consistently overestimated the PAF and its bias was the largest of the conventional methods.
Conclusions
Our mechanistic model provides an independent alternative to conventional methods, quantifying pathogens-specific enteric burden and the biases in those methods. Our model suggests the DE PAF estimations are consistently biased, and validates the OR and RR methods as feasible, low-bias measures for quantifying enteric burden.
