title: Comparing methods for estimating R0 from the size distribution of subcritical transmission chains.
abstract: Many diseases exhibit subcritical transmission (i.e. 0<R0<1) so that infections occur as self-limited 'stuttering chains'. Given an ensemble of stuttering chains, information about the number of cases in each chain can be used to infer R0, which is of crucial importance for monitoring the risk that a disease will emerge to establish endemic circulation. However, the challenge of imperfect case detection has led authors to adopt a variety of work-around measures when inferring R0, such as discarding data on isolated cases or aggregating intermediate-sized chains together. Each of these methods has the potential to introduce bias, but a quantitative comparison of these approaches has not been reported. By adapting a model based on a negative binomial offspring distribution that permits a variable degree of transmission heterogeneity, we present a unified analysis of existing R0 estimation methods. Simulation studies show that the degree of transmission heterogeneity, when improperly modeled, can significantly impact the bias of R0 estimation methods designed for imperfect observation. These studies also highlight the importance of isolated cases in assessing whether an estimation technique is consistent with observed data. Analysis of data from measles outbreaks shows that likelihood scores are highest for models that allow a flexible degree of transmission heterogeneity. Aggregating intermediate sized chains often has similar performance to analyzing a complete chain size distribution. However, truncating isolated cases is beneficial only when surveillance systems clearly favor full observation of large chains but not small chains. Meanwhile, if data on the type and proportion of cases that are unobserved were known, we demonstrate that maximum likelihood inference of R0 could be adjusted accordingly. This motivates the need for future empirical and theoretical work to quantify observation error and incorporate relevant mechanisms into stuttering chain models used to estimate transmission parameters.
authors.affiliation: Fogarty International Center, National Institute of Health, Bethesda, MD, United States; Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Department, University of California, Los Angeles, United States; F.I. Proctor Foundation, University of California, San Francisco, United States. Electronic address: blumberg.seth@gmail.com.
authors.forename: S
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Blumberg
authors.forename: J O
authors.initials: JO
authors.lastname: Lloyd-Smith
mesh_terms: D002170:Canada / Q000453:epidemiology; D004196:Disease Outbreaks / Q000517:prevention & control*; D006801:Humans; D008457:Measles / Q000453:epidemiology / Q000517:prevention & control / Q000635:transmission*; D008954:Models, Biological; D011159:Population Surveillance / Q000379:methods*; D014481:United States / Q000453:epidemiology
keywords: Basic reproductive number; Imperfect observation; Measles; Stuttering chain; Transmission heterogeneity
references.citation: Science. 2009 Dec 4;326(5958):1362-7
references.pmid: 19965751
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010 Sep 14;107(37):16262-7
references.pmid: 20805472
references.citation: PLoS Comput Biol. 2013;9(5):e1002993
references.pmid: 23658504
references.citation: Emerg Infect Dis. 2005 Dec;11(12):1842-7
references.pmid: 16485468
references.citation: Nature. 2005 Nov 17;438(7066):355-9
references.pmid: 16292310
references.citation: Biostatistics. 2003 Apr;4(2):279-95
references.pmid: 12925522
references.citation: Science. 2003 Aug 8;301(5634):804
references.pmid: 12907792
references.citation: Nature. 2007 May 17;447(7142):279-83
references.pmid: 17507975
references.citation: Lancet. 2012 Aug 4;380(9840):454-5
references.pmid: 22766208
references.citation: Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2001 Jul 29;356(1411):983-9
references.pmid: 11516376
references.citation: J Infect Dis. 2004 May 1;189 Suppl 1:S191-5
references.pmid: 15106110
references.citation: PLoS One. 2007 Feb 14;2(2):e180
references.pmid: 17299582
references.citation: Nat Rev Microbiol. 2010 Nov;8(11):802-13
references.pmid: 20938453
references.citation: J Infect Dis. 2004 May 1;189 Suppl 1:S36-42
references.pmid: 15106087
references.citation: Lancet. 2012 Aug 4;380(9840):491-8
references.pmid: 22766207
references.citation: Proc Biol Sci. 2009 Nov 22;276(1675):3937-43
references.pmid: 19692402
references.citation: Nature. 2003 Dec 11;426(6967):658-61
references.pmid: 14668863
references.citation: Science. 2004 May 14;304(5673):968-9
references.pmid: 15143265
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004 Sep 7;101(36):13391-4
references.pmid: 15329411
references.citation: J Theor Biol. 2008 Jul 21;253(2):228-37
references.pmid: 18423673
references.citation: Biometrics. 1977 Sep;33(3):515-22
references.pmid: 911971
references.citation: N Engl J Med. 2009 May 7;360(19):1981-8
references.pmid: 19420367
references.citation: J Infect Dis. 2004 May 1;189 Suppl 1:S236-42
references.pmid: 15106117
references.citation: J Theor Biol. 2012 Feb 7;294:48-55
references.pmid: 22079419
references.citation: Am J Epidemiol. 2000 Jun 1;151(11):1039-48; discussion 1049-52
references.pmid: 10873127