Search

Meta-analysis is a powerful tool to synthesize findings from multiple studies. The normal–normal random-effects model is widely used to account for between-study heterogeneity. However, meta-analyses of sparse data, which may arise when the event rate is low for binary or count outcomes, pose a challenge to the normal–normal random-effects model in the accuracy and stability in inference since the normal approximation in the within-study model may not be good. To reduce bias arising from data sparsity, the generalized linear mixed model can be used by replacing the approximate normal within-study model with an exact model. Publication bias is one of the most serious threats in meta-analysis. Several quantitative sensitivity analysis methods for evaluating the potential impacts of selective publication are available for the normal–normal random-effects model. We propose a sensitivity analysis method by extending the likelihood-based sensitivity analysis with the $t$ -statistic selection function of Copas to several generalized linear mixed-effects models. Through applications of our proposed method to several real-world meta-analyses and simulation studies, the proposed method was proven to outperform the likelihood-based sensitivity analysis based on the normal–normal model. The proposed method would give useful guidance to address publication bias in the meta-analysis of sparse data. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The recommender system (RS) has been widely adopted in many applications, including online advertisements. Predicting the conversion rate (CVR) can help in evaluating the effects of advertisements on users and capturing users' features, playing an important role in RS. In real-world scenarios, implicit rather than explicit feedback data are more abundant. Thus, directly training the RS with collected data may lead to suboptimal performance due to selection bias inherited from the nature of implicit feedback. Methods such as reweighting have been proposed to tackle selection bias; however, these methods omit delayed feedback, which often occurs due to limited observation times. We propose a novel likelihood approach combining the assumed parametric model for delayed feedback and the reweighting method to address selection bias. Specifically, the proposed methods minimize the likelihood-based loss using the multi-task learning method. The proposed methods are evaluated on the real-world Coat and Yahoo datasets. The proposed methods improve the AUC by 5.7% on Coat and 3.7% on Yahoo compared with the best baseline models. The proposed methods successfully debias the CVR prediction model in the presence of delayed implicit feedback. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Though COVID-19 vaccines have shown high efficacy, real-world effectiveness at the population level remains unclear. Based on the longitudinal data on vaccination coverage and daily infection cases from fifty states in the United States from March to May 2021, causal analyses were conducted using structural nested mean models to estimate the population-level effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccination program against infection with the original strain. We found that in the US, every 1% increase of vaccination coverage rate reduced the weekly growth rate of COVID-19 confirmed cases by 1.02% (95% CI: 0.26%, 1.69%), and the estimated population-level effectiveness of the COVID-19 program was 63.9% (95% CI: 18.0%, 87.5%). In comparison to a no-vaccination scenario, the COVID-19 vaccination campaign averted 8.05 million infections through the study period. Scenario analyses show that a vaccination program with doubled vaccination speed or with more rapid vaccination speed at the early stages of the campaign would avert more infections and increase vaccine effectiveness. The COVID-19 vaccination program demonstrated a high population-level effectiveness and significantly reduced the disease burden in the US. Accelerating vaccine rollout, especially at an early stage of the campaign, is crucial for reducing COVID-19 infections. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Omicron, the latest SARS-CoV-2 Variant of Concern (VOC), first appeared in Africa in November 2021. At present, the question of whether a new VOC will out-compete the currently predominant variant is important for governments seeking to determine if current surveillance strategies and responses are appropriate and reasonable. Based on both virus genomes and daily-confirmed cases, we compare the additive differences in growth rates and reproductive numbers ( R 0 ) between VOCs and their predominant variants through a Bayesian framework and phylo-dynamics analysis. Faced with different variants, we evaluate the effects of current policies and vaccinations against VOCs and predominant variants. The model also predicts the date on which a VOC may become dominant based on simulation and real data in the early stage. The results suggest that the overall additive difference in growth rates of B.1.617.2 and predominant variants was 0.44 (95% confidence interval, 95% CI: −0.38, 1.25) in February 2021, and that the VOC had a relatively high R 0 . The additive difference in the growth rate of BA.1 in the United Kingdom was 6.82 times the difference between Delta and Alpha, and the model successfully predicted the dominating process of Alpha, Delta and Omicron. Current vaccination strategies remain similarly effective against Delta compared to the previous variants. Our model proposes a reliable Bayesian framework to predict the spread trends of VOCs based on early-stage data, and evaluates the effects of public health policies, which may help us better prepare for the upcoming Omicron variant, which is now spreading at an unprecedented speed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We have proposed a novel, accurate low-cost method to estimate the incubation-period distribution of COVID-19 by conducting a cross-sectional and forward follow-up study. We identified those presymptomatic individuals at their time of departure from Wuhan and followed them until the development of symptoms. The renewal process was adopted by considering the incubation period as a renewal and the duration between departure and symptoms onset as a forward time. Such a method enhances the accuracy of estimation by reducing recall bias and using the readily available data. The estimated median incubation period was 7.76 days [95% confidence interval (CI): 7.02 to 8.53], and the 90th percentile was 14.28 days (95% CI: 13.64 to 14.90). By including the possibility that a small portion of patients may contract the disease on their way out of Wuhan, the estimated probability that the incubation period is longer than 14 days was between 5 and 10%., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors, some rights reserved; exclusive licensee American Association for the Advancement of Science. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 (CC BY).)