Emulating Target Trials to Improve Causal Inference From Agent-Based Models

Transportability Without Positivity: A Synthesis of Statistical and Simulation Modeling

Studies designed to estimate the effect of an action in a randomized or observational setting often do not represent a random sample of the desired target population. Instead, estimates from that study can be transported to the target population. However, transportability methods generally rely on a positivity assumption, such that all relevant covariate patterns in the target population are also observed in the study sample. Strict eligibility criteria, particularly in the context of randomized trials, may lead to violations of this assumption. Two common approaches to address positivity violations are restricting the target population and restricting the relevant covariate set. As neither of these restrictions is ideal, we instead propose a synthesis of statistical and simulation models to address positivity violations. We propose corresponding g-computation and inverse probability weighting estimators. The restriction and synthesis approaches to addressing positivity violations are contrasted with a simulation experiment and an illustrative example in the context of sexually transmitted infection testing uptake. In both cases, the proposed synthesis approach accurately addressed the original research question when paired with a thoughtfully selected simulation model. Neither of the restriction approaches was able to accurately address the motivating question. As public health decisions must often be made with imperfect target population information, model synthesis is a viable approach given a combination of empirical data and external information based on the best available knowledge.

Some principles for using epidemiologic study results to parameterize transmission models

Background

Infectious disease models, including individual based models (IBMs), can be used to inform public health response. For these models to be effective, accurate estimates of key parameters describing the natural history of infection and disease are needed. However, obtaining these parameter estimates from epidemiological studies is not always straightforward. We aim to 1) outline challenges to parameter estimation that arise due to common biases found in epidemiologic studies and 2) describe the conditions under which careful consideration in the design and analysis of the study could allow us to obtain a causal estimate of the parameter of interest. In this discussion we do not focus on issues of generalizability and transportability.

Methods

Using examples from the COVID-19 pandemic, we first identify different ways of parameterizing IBMs and describe ideal study designs to estimate these parameters. Given real-world limitations, we describe challenges in parameter estimation due to confounding and conditioning on a post-exposure observation. We then describe ideal study designs that can lead to unbiased parameter estimates. We finally discuss additional challenges in estimating progression probabilities and the consequences of these challenges.

Results

Causal estimation can only occur if we are able to accurately measure and control for all confounding variables that create non-causal associations between the exposure and outcome of interest, which is sometimes challenging given the nature of the variables we need to measure. In the absence of perfect control, non-causal parameter estimates should still be used, as sometimes they are the best available information we have.

Conclusions

Identifying which estimates from epidemiologic studies correspond to the quantities needed to parameterize disease models, and determining whether these parameters have causal interpretations, can inform future study designs and improve inferences from infectious disease models. Understanding the way in which biases can arise in parameter estimation can inform sensitivity analyses or help with interpretation of results if the magnitude and direction of the bias is understood.

Applications of agent-based modeling in trauma research

OBJECTIVE

Trauma, violence, and their consequences for population health are shaped by complex, intersecting forces across the life span. We aimed to illustrate the strengths of agent-based modeling (ABM), a computational approach in which population-level patterns emerge from the behaviors and interactions of simulated individuals, for advancing trauma research; Method: We provide an overview of agent-based modeling for trauma research, including a discussion of the model development process, ABM as a complement to other causal inference and complex systems approaches in trauma research, and past ABM applications in the trauma literature; Results: We use existing ABM applications to illustrate the strengths of ABM for trauma research, including incorporating interactions between individuals, simulating processes across multiple scales, examining life-course effects, testing alternate theories, comparing intervention strategies in a virtual laboratory, and guiding decision making. We also discuss the challenges of applying ABM to trauma research and offer specific suggestions for incorporating ABM into future studies of trauma and violence; Conclusion: Agent-based modeling is a useful complement to other methodological advances in trauma research. We recommend a more widespread adoption of ABM, particularly for research into patterns and consequences of individual traumatic experiences across the life course and understanding the effects of interventions that may be influenced by social norms and social network structures. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

G-Computation and Agent-Based Modeling for Social Epidemiology: Can Population Interventions Prevent Posttraumatic Stress Disorder?

Agent-based modeling and g-computation can both be used to estimate impacts of intervening on complex systems. We explored each modeling approach within an applied example: interventions to reduce posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). We used data from a cohort of 2,282 adults representative of the adult population of the New York City metropolitan area from 2002-2006, of whom 16.3% developed PTSD over their lifetimes. We built 4 models: g-computation, an agent-based model (ABM) with no between-agent interactions, an ABM with violent-interaction dynamics, and an ABM with neighborhood dynamics. Three interventions were tested: 1) reducing violent victimization by 37.2% (real-world reduction); 2) reducing violent victimization by100%; and 3) supplementing the income of 20% of lower-income participants. The g-computation model estimated population-level PTSD risk reductions of 0.12% (95% confidence interval (CI): -0.16, 0.29), 0.28% (95% CI: -0.30, 0.70), and 1.55% (95% CI: 0.40, 2.12), respectively. The ABM with no interactions replicated the findings from g-computation. Introduction of interaction dynamics modestly decreased estimated intervention effects (income-supplement risk reduction dropped to 1.47%), whereas introduction of neighborhood dynamics modestly increased effectiveness (income-supplement risk reduction increased to 1.58%). Compared with g-computation, agent-based modeling permitted deeper exploration of complex systems dynamics at the cost of further assumptions.