Invited Commentary: Agent-Based Models - Bias in the Face of Discovery

Katherine M. Keyes, Melissa Tracy, Stephen J. Mooney, Aaron Shev, Magdalena Cerda

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

4 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Agent-based models (ABMs) have grown in popularity in epidemiologic applications, but the assumptions necessary for valid inference have only partially been articulated. In this issue, Murray et al. (Am J Epidemiol. 2017;186(2):131-142) provided a much-needed analysis of the consequence of some of these assumptions, comparing analysis using an ABM to a similar analysis using the parametric g-formula. In particular, their work focused on the biases that can arise in ABMs that use parameters drawn from distinct populations whose causal structures and baseline outcome risks differ. This demonstration of the quantitative issues that arise in transporting effects between populations has implications not only for ABMs but for all epidemiologic applications, because making use of epidemiologic results requires application beyond a study sample. Broadly, because health arises within complex, dynamic, and hierarchical systems, many research questions cannot be answered statistically without strong assumptions. It will require every tool in our store of methods to properly understand population dynamics if we wish to build an evidence base that is adequate for action. Murray et al.'s results provide insight into these assumptions that epidemiologists can use when selecting a modeling approach.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)146-148
Number of pages3
JournalAmerican Journal of Epidemiology
Volume186
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2017

Fingerprint

Population Dynamics
Population
Health
Research
Epidemiologists

Keywords

  • Agent-based models
  • Causal inference
  • Decision analysis
  • Individual-level models
  • Mathematical models
  • Medical decision making
  • Monte Carlo methods
  • Parametric g-formula

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Epidemiology

Cite this

Invited Commentary : Agent-Based Models - Bias in the Face of Discovery. / Keyes, Katherine M.; Tracy, Melissa; Mooney, Stephen J.; Shev, Aaron; Cerda, Magdalena.

In: American Journal of Epidemiology, Vol. 186, No. 2, 01.01.2017, p. 146-148.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Keyes, Katherine M. ; Tracy, Melissa ; Mooney, Stephen J. ; Shev, Aaron ; Cerda, Magdalena. / Invited Commentary : Agent-Based Models - Bias in the Face of Discovery. In: American Journal of Epidemiology. 2017 ; Vol. 186, No. 2. pp. 146-148.
@article{c22980ac35b5485fba9459c9713b3dda,
title = "Invited Commentary: Agent-Based Models - Bias in the Face of Discovery",
abstract = "Agent-based models (ABMs) have grown in popularity in epidemiologic applications, but the assumptions necessary for valid inference have only partially been articulated. In this issue, Murray et al. (Am J Epidemiol. 2017;186(2):131-142) provided a much-needed analysis of the consequence of some of these assumptions, comparing analysis using an ABM to a similar analysis using the parametric g-formula. In particular, their work focused on the biases that can arise in ABMs that use parameters drawn from distinct populations whose causal structures and baseline outcome risks differ. This demonstration of the quantitative issues that arise in transporting effects between populations has implications not only for ABMs but for all epidemiologic applications, because making use of epidemiologic results requires application beyond a study sample. Broadly, because health arises within complex, dynamic, and hierarchical systems, many research questions cannot be answered statistically without strong assumptions. It will require every tool in our store of methods to properly understand population dynamics if we wish to build an evidence base that is adequate for action. Murray et al.'s results provide insight into these assumptions that epidemiologists can use when selecting a modeling approach.",
keywords = "Agent-based models, Causal inference, Decision analysis, Individual-level models, Mathematical models, Medical decision making, Monte Carlo methods, Parametric g-formula",
author = "Keyes, {Katherine M.} and Melissa Tracy and Mooney, {Stephen J.} and Aaron Shev and Magdalena Cerda",
year = "2017",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1093/aje/kwx090",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "186",
pages = "146--148",
journal = "American Journal of Epidemiology",
issn = "0002-9262",
publisher = "Oxford University Press",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Invited Commentary

T2 - Agent-Based Models - Bias in the Face of Discovery

AU - Keyes, Katherine M.

AU - Tracy, Melissa

AU - Mooney, Stephen J.

AU - Shev, Aaron

AU - Cerda, Magdalena

PY - 2017/1/1

Y1 - 2017/1/1

N2 - Agent-based models (ABMs) have grown in popularity in epidemiologic applications, but the assumptions necessary for valid inference have only partially been articulated. In this issue, Murray et al. (Am J Epidemiol. 2017;186(2):131-142) provided a much-needed analysis of the consequence of some of these assumptions, comparing analysis using an ABM to a similar analysis using the parametric g-formula. In particular, their work focused on the biases that can arise in ABMs that use parameters drawn from distinct populations whose causal structures and baseline outcome risks differ. This demonstration of the quantitative issues that arise in transporting effects between populations has implications not only for ABMs but for all epidemiologic applications, because making use of epidemiologic results requires application beyond a study sample. Broadly, because health arises within complex, dynamic, and hierarchical systems, many research questions cannot be answered statistically without strong assumptions. It will require every tool in our store of methods to properly understand population dynamics if we wish to build an evidence base that is adequate for action. Murray et al.'s results provide insight into these assumptions that epidemiologists can use when selecting a modeling approach.

AB - Agent-based models (ABMs) have grown in popularity in epidemiologic applications, but the assumptions necessary for valid inference have only partially been articulated. In this issue, Murray et al. (Am J Epidemiol. 2017;186(2):131-142) provided a much-needed analysis of the consequence of some of these assumptions, comparing analysis using an ABM to a similar analysis using the parametric g-formula. In particular, their work focused on the biases that can arise in ABMs that use parameters drawn from distinct populations whose causal structures and baseline outcome risks differ. This demonstration of the quantitative issues that arise in transporting effects between populations has implications not only for ABMs but for all epidemiologic applications, because making use of epidemiologic results requires application beyond a study sample. Broadly, because health arises within complex, dynamic, and hierarchical systems, many research questions cannot be answered statistically without strong assumptions. It will require every tool in our store of methods to properly understand population dynamics if we wish to build an evidence base that is adequate for action. Murray et al.'s results provide insight into these assumptions that epidemiologists can use when selecting a modeling approach.

KW - Agent-based models

KW - Causal inference

KW - Decision analysis

KW - Individual-level models

KW - Mathematical models

KW - Medical decision making

KW - Monte Carlo methods

KW - Parametric g-formula

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85029678376&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85029678376&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1093/aje/kwx090

DO - 10.1093/aje/kwx090

M3 - Review article

C2 - 28673036

AN - SCOPUS:85029678376

VL - 186

SP - 146

EP - 148

JO - American Journal of Epidemiology

JF - American Journal of Epidemiology

SN - 0002-9262

IS - 2

ER -