Archive for medrXiv

probability that a vaccinated person is shielded from COVID-19?

Posted in Books, Statistics, Travel, University life with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , on March 10, 2021 by xi'an

Over my flight to Montpellier last week, I read an arXival on a Bayesian analysis of the vaccine efficiency. Whose full title is “What is the probability that a vaccinated person is shielded from Covid-19? A Bayesian MCMC based reanalysis of published data with emphasis on what should be reported as `efficacy'”, by Giulio D’Agostini and Alfredo Esposito. In short I was not particularly impressed.

“But the real point we wish to highlight, given the spread of distributions, is that we do not have enough data for drawing sound conclusion.”

The reason for this lack of enthusiasm on my side is that, while the authors’ criticism of an excessive precision in Pfizer, Moderna, or AstraZeneca press releases is appropriate, given the published confidence intervals are not claiming the same precision, a Bayesian reanalysis of the published outcome of their respective vaccine trial outcomes does not show much, simply because there is awfully little data, essentially two to four Binomial-like outcomes. Without further data, the modelling is one of a simple graph of Binomial observations, with two or three probability parameters, which results in a very standard Bayesian analysis that does depend on the modelling choices being made, from a highly unrealistic assumption of homogeneity throughout the population(s) tested for the vaccine(s), to a lack of hyperparameters that could have been shared between vaccinated populations. Parts of the arXival are unrelated and unnecessary, like the highly detailed MCMC algorithm for simulating the posterior (incl. JAGS code) to the reminiscence of Bayes’ and Laplace’s early rendering of inverse probability. (I find both interesting and revealing that arXiv, just like medRxiv, posts a warning on top of COVID related preprints.)

simplified Bayesian analysis

Posted in Statistics with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , on February 10, 2021 by xi'an

A colleague from Dauphine sent me a paper by Carlo Graziani on a Bayesian analysis of vaccine efficiency, asking for my opinion. The Bayesian side is quite simple: given two Poisson observations, N~P(μ) and M~P(ν), there exists a reparameterisation of (μ,ν) into

e=1-μ/rν  and  λ=ν(1+(1-e)r)=μ+ν

vaccine efficiency and expectation of N+M, respectively, when r is the vaccine-to-placebo ratio of person-times at risk, ie the ratio of the numbers of participants in each group. Reparameterisation such that the likelihood factorises into a function of e and a function of λ. Using a product prior for this parameterisation leads to a posterior on e times a posterior on λ. This is a nice remark, which may have been made earlier (as for instance another approach to infer about e while treating λ as a nuisance parameter is to condition on N+M). The paper then proposes as an application of this remark an analysis of the results of three SARS-Cov-2 vaccines, meaning using the pairs (N,M) for each vaccine and deriving credible intervals, which sounds more like an exercise in basic Bayesian inference than a fundamental step in assessing the efficiency of the vaccines…

SMC on the 2019-2020 nCoV outbreak

Posted in Books, R, Statistics, Travel with tags , , , , , , , , , , on February 19, 2020 by xi'an

Two weeks ago, Kurcharski et al., from the CMMID nCoV working group at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, published on medrXiv a statistical analysis via a stochastic SEIR model of the evolution of the 2019-2020 nCoV epidemics, with prediction of a peak outbreak by late February in Wuhan and a past outbreak abroad. Here are some further details on the modelling:

Transmission was modelled as a geometric random walk process, and we used sequential Monte Carlo to infer the transmission rate over time, as well as the resulting number of cases and the time-varying reproduction number, R, defined as the average number of secondary cases generated by a typical infectious individual on each day.
To calculate the likelihood, we used a Poisson observation model fitted jointly to expected values based on three model outputs. To calculate the daily expectation for each Poisson observation process, we converted these outputs into new case onset and new reported cases inside Wuhan and travelling internationally. We assumed a different relative reporting  probability for Wuhan cases compared to international cases, as assumed only a proportion of confirmed Wuhan cases had known onset dates (fixed at 0.15 based on available line list data). As destination country was known for confirmed exported cases, we used 20 time series for cases exported (or not) to most at-risk countries each day and calculated the probability of obtaining each of these datasets given the model outputs. International onset data was not disaggregated by country and so we used the total daily exported cases in our Poisson probability calculation.
I did not look much further into the medrXiv document but the model may be too simplistic as it does not seem to account for the potential under-reporting within China and the impact of the severe quarantine imposed by Chinese authorities which may mean a new outbreak as soon as the confinement is lifted.