IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0275380.html

A meta-epidemiological assessment of transparency indicators of infectious disease models

Author

Listed:
  • Emmanuel A Zavalis
  • John P A Ioannidis

Abstract

Mathematical models have become very influential, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. Data and code sharing are indispensable for reproducing them, protocol registration may be useful sometimes, and declarations of conflicts of interest (COIs) and of funding are quintessential for transparency. Here, we evaluated these features in publications of infectious disease-related models and assessed whether there were differences before and during the COVID-19 pandemic and for COVID-19 models versus models for other diseases. We analysed all PubMed Central open access publications of infectious disease models published in 2019 and 2021 using previously validated text mining algorithms of transparency indicators. We evaluated 1338 articles: 216 from 2019 and 1122 from 2021 (of which 818 were on COVID-19); almost a six-fold increase in publications within the field. 511 (39.2%) were compartmental models, 337 (25.2%) were time series, 279 (20.9%) were spatiotemporal, 186 (13.9%) were agent-based and 25 (1.9%) contained multiple model types. 288 (21.5%) articles shared code, 332 (24.8%) shared data, 6 (0.4%) were registered, and 1197 (89.5%) and 1109 (82.9%) contained COI and funding statements, respectively. There was no major changes in transparency indicators between 2019 and 2021. COVID-19 articles were less likely to have funding statements and more likely to share code. Further validation was performed by manual assessment of 10% of the articles identified by text mining as fulfilling transparency indicators and of 10% of the articles lacking them. Correcting estimates for validation performance, 26.0% of papers shared code and 41.1% shared data. On manual assessment, 5/6 articles identified as registered had indeed been registered. Of articles containing COI and funding statements, 95.8% disclosed no conflict and 11.7% reported no funding. Transparency in infectious disease modelling is relatively low, especially for data and code sharing. This is concerning, considering the nature of this research and the heightened influence it has acquired.

Suggested Citation

  • Emmanuel A Zavalis & John P A Ioannidis, 2022. "A meta-epidemiological assessment of transparency indicators of infectious disease models," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(10), pages 1-13, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0275380
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0275380
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0275380
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0275380&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0275380?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Stylianos Serghiou & Despina G Contopoulos-Ioannidis & Kevin W Boyack & Nico Riedel & Joshua D Wallach & John P A Ioannidis, 2021. "Assessment of transparency indicators across the biomedical literature: How open is open?," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 19(3), pages 1-26, March.
    2. Seamus Kent & Frauke Becker & Talitha Feenstra & An Tran-Duy & Iryna Schlackow & Michelle Tew & Ping Zhang & Wen Ye & Shi Lizheng & William Herman & Phil McEwan & Wendelin Schramm & Alastair Gray & Jo, 2019. "The Challenge of Transparency and Validation in Health Economic Decision Modelling: A View from Mount Hood," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(11), pages 1305-1312, November.
    3. Daniel J. Benjamin & James O. Berger & Magnus Johannesson & Brian A. Nosek & E.-J. Wagenmakers & Richard Berk & Kenneth A. Bollen & Björn Brembs & Lawrence Brown & Colin Camerer & David Cesarini & Chr, 2018. "Redefine statistical significance," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 2(1), pages 6-10, January.
      • Daniel Benjamin & James Berger & Magnus Johannesson & Brian Nosek & E. Wagenmakers & Richard Berk & Kenneth Bollen & Bjorn Brembs & Lawrence Brown & Colin Camerer & David Cesarini & Christopher Chambe, 2017. "Redefine Statistical Significance," Artefactual Field Experiments 00612, The Field Experiments Website.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Mayo, Deborah, 2024. "Error statistics, Bayes-factor Tests and the Fallacy of Non-exhaustive Alternatives," OSF Preprints tmgqd, Center for Open Science.
    2. Dreber, Anna & Heikensten, Emma & Säve-Söderbergh, Jenny, 2022. "Why do women ask for less?," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    3. Ruijun Hou & Samuel Baker & Stephanie von Hinke & Hans H. Sievertsen & Emil Sorensen & Nicolai Vitt, 2025. "Long-term Health and Human Capital Effects of EarlyLife Economic Conditions," Bristol Economics Discussion Papers 25/814, School of Economics, University of Bristol, UK.
    4. Ardila Brenøe, Anne & Eyibak, Zeynep & Heursen, Lea & Ranehill, Eva & Weber, Roberto A., 2024. "Gender Identity and Economic Decision Making," Working Papers 2024:6, Lund University, Department of Economics.
    5. Buchanan, Erin Michelle & Scofield, John E., 2017. "Bulletproof Bias? Considering the Type of Data in Common Proportion of Variance Effect Sizes," OSF Preprints cs4vy, Center for Open Science.
    6. Bibhas Chakraborty, 2020. "Statistical Remedies for Medical Researchers," International Statistical Review, International Statistical Institute, vol. 88(3), pages 802-804, December.
    7. Levy, Gilat & Razin, Ronny, 2021. "A Maximum Likelihood Approach to Combining Forecasts," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 16(1), January.
    8. John A. List, 2024. "Optimally generate policy-based evidence before scaling," Nature, Nature, vol. 626(7999), pages 491-499, February.
    9. Samahita, Margaret & Holm, Håkan J., 2020. "Mining for Mood Effect in the Field," Working Papers 2020:2, Lund University, Department of Economics.
    10. Fossen, Frank M. & Neyse, Levent & Johannesson, Magnus & Dreber Almenberg, Anna, 2020. "2D:4D and Self-Employment Using SOEP Data: A Replication Study," IZA Discussion Papers 13180, IZA Network @ LISER.
    11. Jonas Vandenbruaene & Marc De Ceuster & Jan Annaert, 2022. "Efficient Spread Betting Markets: A Literature Review," Journal of Sports Economics, , vol. 23(7), pages 907-949, October.
    12. Huber, Christoph & Huber, Jürgen & Kirchler, Michael, 2021. "Market shocks and professionals’ investment behavior – Evidence from the COVID-19 crash," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 133(C).
    13. Gonzalez-Jimenez, David & Capozza, Francesco & Dirkmaat, Thomas & van de Veer, Evelien & van Druten, Amber & Baillon, Aurélien, 2025. "Falling and failing (to learn): Evidence from a nation-wide cybersecurity field experiment with SMEs," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 230(C).
    14. Vigren, Andreas & Pyddoke, Roger, 2020. "The impact on bus ridership of passenger incentive contracts in public transport," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 144-159.
    15. Khuram Mirza, 2023. "An analysis of early marriage in Pakhtun society: determinants, consequences, and interventions," Journal of International Relations and Social Dynamics, 50sea, vol. 2(2), pages 53-63, August.
    16. Dudek, Thomas & Brenøe, Anne Ardila & Feld, Jan & Rohrer, Julia, 2022. "No Evidence That Siblings' Gender Affects Personality across Nine Countries," IZA Discussion Papers 15137, IZA Network @ LISER.
    17. Patrick Vu, 2022. "Can the Replication Rate Tell Us About Publication Bias?," Papers 2206.15023, arXiv.org, revised Jul 2022.
    18. repec:osf:metaar:s4b65_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Grüner Sven, 2020. "Sample Size Calculation in Economic Experiments," Journal of Economics and Statistics (Jahrbuecher fuer Nationaloekonomie und Statistik), De Gruyter, vol. 240(6), pages 791-823, December.
    20. Hess, Stephane & Daly, Andrew & Bliemer, Michiel & Guevara, Angelo & Daziano, Ricardo & Dekker, Thijs, 2026. "Statistical significance in choice modelling: computation, usage and reporting," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    21. Schmid, Nico André & Limère, Veronique & Raa, Birger, 2021. "Mixed model assembly line feeding with discrete location assignments and variable station space," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).

    More about this item

    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:plo:pone00:0275380. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.