Search for: All records

Biologists routinely fit novel and complex statistical models to push the limits of our understanding. Examples include, but are not limited to, flexible Bayesian approaches (e.g. BUGS, stan), frequentist and likelihood‐based approaches (e.g. packageslme4) and machine learning methods.

These software and programs afford the user greater control and flexibility in tailoring complex hierarchical models. However, this level of control and flexibility places a higher degree of responsibility on the user to evaluate the robustness of their statistical inference. To determine how often biologists are running model diagnostics on hierarchical models, we reviewed 50 recently published papers in 2021 in the journalNature Ecology & Evolution, and we found that the majority of published papers didnotreport any validation of their hierarchical models, making it difficult for the reader to assess the robustness of their inference. This lack of reporting likely stems from a lack of standardized guidance for best practices and standard methods.

Here, we provide a guide to understanding and validating complex models using data simulations. To determine how often biologists use data simulation techniques, we also reviewed 50 recently published papers in 2021 in the journalMethods Ecology & Evolution. We found that 78% of the papers that proposed a new estimation technique, package or model used simulations or generated data in some capacity (18 of 23 papers); but very few of those papers (5 of 23 papers) included either a demonstration that the code could recover realistic estimates for a dataset with known parameters or a demonstration of the statistical properties of the approach. To distil the variety of simulations techniques and their uses, we provide a taxonomy of simulation studies based on the intended inference. We also encourage authors to include a basic validation study whenever novel statistical models are used, which in general, is easy to implement.

Simulating data helps a researcher gain a deeper understanding of the models and their assumptions and establish the reliability of their estimation approaches. Wider adoption of data simulations by biologists can improve statistical inference, reliability and open science practices.

 

COVID-19 clinical outcomes improved over the first 6 months, but infection fatality rates were initially above 1.5%. 

Abstract Background When three SARS-CoV-2 vaccines came to market in Europe and North America in the winter of 2020–2021, distribution networks were in a race against a major epidemiological wave of SARS-CoV-2 that began in autumn 2020. Rapid and optimized vaccine allocation was critical during this time. With 95% efficacy reported for two of the vaccines, near-term public health needs likely require that distribution is prioritized to the elderly, health care workers, teachers, essential workers, and individuals with comorbidities putting them at risk of severe clinical progression. Methods We evaluate various age-based vaccine distributions using a validated mathematical model based on current epidemic trends in Rhode Island and Massachusetts. We allow for varying waning efficacy of vaccine-induced immunity, as this has not yet been measured. We account for the fact that known COVID-positive cases may not have been included in the first round of vaccination. And, we account for age-specific immune patterns in both states at the time of the start of the vaccination program. Our analysis assumes that health systems during winter 2020–2021 had equal staffing and capacity to previous phases of the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic; we do not consider the effects of understaffed hospitals or unvaccinated medical staff. Results We find that allocating a substantial proportion (>75 % ) of vaccine supply to individuals over the age of 70 is optimal in terms of reducing total cumulative deaths through mid-2021. This result is robust to different profiles of waning vaccine efficacy and several different assumptions on age mixing during and after lockdown periods. As we do not explicitly model other high-mortality groups, our results on vaccine allocation apply to all groups at high risk of mortality if infected. A median of 327 to 340 deaths can be avoided in Rhode Island (3444 to 3647 in Massachusetts) by optimizing vaccine allocation and vaccinating the elderly first. The vaccination campaigns are expected to save a median of 639 to 664 lives in Rhode Island and 6278 to 6618 lives in Massachusetts in the first half of 2021 when compared to a scenario with no vaccine. A policy of vaccinating only seronegative individuals avoids redundancy in vaccine use on individuals that may already be immune, and would result in 0.5% to 1% reductions in cumulative hospitalizations and deaths by mid-2021. Conclusions Assuming high vaccination coverage (>28 % ) and no major changes in distancing, masking, gathering size, hygiene guidelines, and virus transmissibility between 1 January 2021 and 1 July 2021 a combination of vaccination and population immunity may lead to low or near-zero transmission levels by the second quarter of 2021. 

Riverscape genetics, which applies concepts in landscape genetics to riverine ecosystems, lack appropriate quantitative methods that address the spatial autocorrelation structure of linear stream networks and account for bidirectional geneflow. To address these challenges, we present a general framework for the design and analysis of riverscape genetic studies. Our framework starts with the estimation of pairwise genetic distance at sample sites and the development of a spatially structured ecological network (SSEN) on which riverscape covariates are measured. We then introduce the novel bidirectional geneflow in riverscapes (BGR) model that uses principles of isolation‐by‐resistance to quantify the effects of environmental covariates on genetic connectivity, with spatial covariance defined using simultaneous autoregressive models on the SSEN and the generalized Wishart distribution to model pairwise distance matrices arising through a random walk model of geneflow. We highlight the utility of this framework in an analysis of riverscape genetics for brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) in north central Pennsylvania, USA. Using the fixation index (F_ST) as the measure of genetic distance, we estimated the effects of 12 riverscape covariates on geneflow by evaluating the relative support of eight competing BGR models. We then compared the performance of the top‐ranked BGR model to results obtained from comparable analyses using multiple regression on distance matrices (MRM) and the program STRUCTURE. We found that the BGR model had more power to detect covariate effects, particularly for variables that were only partial barriers to geneflow and/or uncommon in the riverscape, making it more informative for assessing patterns of population connectivity and identifying threats to species conservation. This case study highlights the utility of our modeling framework over other quantitative methods in riverscape genetics, particularly the ability to rigorously test hypotheses about factors that influence geneflow and probabilistically estimate the effect of riverscape covariates, including stream flow direction. This framework is flexible across taxa and riverine networks, is easily executable, and provides intuitive results that can be used to investigate the likely outcomes of current and future management scenarios.