IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/jas/jasssj/2025-147-3.html

All Models Are Wrong, but Can They Be Useful? Lessons from COVID-19 Agent-Based Models: A Systematic Review

Author

Listed:

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic prompted a surge in computational models to simulate disease dynamics and guide interventions. Agent-based models (ABMs) are well-suited to capture population and environmental heterogeneity, but their rapid deployment raised questions about utility for health policy. We systematically reviewed 536 COVID-19 ABM studies published from January 2020 to December 2023, retrieved from Web of Science, PubMed, and Wiley on January 30, 2024. Studies were included if they used ABMs to simulate COVID-19 transmission, where reviews were excluded. Studies were assessed against nine criteria of model usefulness, including transparency and re-use, interdisciplinary collaboration and stakeholder engagement, and evaluation practices. Publications peaked in late 2021 and were concentrated in a few countries. Most models explored behavioral or policy interventions (n = 294, 54.85%) rather than real-time forecasting (n = 9, 1.68%). While most described model assumptions (n = 491, 91.60%), fewer disclosed limitations (n = 349, 65.11%), shared code (n = 219, 40.86%), or built on existing models (n = 195, 36.38%). Standardized reporting protocols (n = 36, 6.72%) and stakeholder engagement were rare (13.62%, n = 73). Only 2.24% (n = 12) described a comprehensive validation framework, though uncertainty was often quantified (n = 407, 75.93%). Over time, reporting of stakeholder engagement and evaluation increased. Studies that claimed policy relevance (n = 354, 66.05%) more often included some evaluation (n = 283, 79.94% vs. n = 125, 68.68%) and stakeholder engagement (n = 61, 17.23% vs. n = 12, 6.59%), though they were less likely to re-use models or share code. Limitations of this review include underrepresentation of non-English studies, subjective data extraction, variability in study quality, and limited generalizability. Overall, COVID-19 ABMs advanced quickly, but lacked transparency, accessibility, and participatory engagement. Stronger standards are needed for ABMs to serve as reliable decision-support tools in future public health crises.

Suggested Citation

  • Emma Von Hoene & Sara Von Hoene & Szandra Péter & Ethan Hopson & Emily Csizmadia & Faith Fenyk & Kai Barner & Timothy Leslie & Hamdi Kavak & Andreas Züfle & Amira Roess & Taylor Anderson, 2026. "All Models Are Wrong, but Can They Be Useful? Lessons from COVID-19 Agent-Based Models: A Systematic Review," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 29(1), pages 1-7.
  • Handle: RePEc:jas:jasssj:2025-147-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.jasss.org/29/1/7/7.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:jas:jasssj:2025-147-3. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Francesco Renzini (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.