Abstract
Background Infectious disease computational modeling studies have been widely published during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, yet they have limited reproducibility. Developed through an iterative testing process with multiple reviewers, the Infectious Disease Modeling Reproducibility Checklist (IDMRC) enumerates the minimal elements necessary to support reproducible infectious disease computational modeling publications. The primary objective of this study was to assess the reliability of the IDMRC and to identify which reproducibility elements were unreported in a sample of COVID-19 computational modeling publications.
Methods Four reviewers used the IDMRC to assess 46 preprint and peer reviewed COVID-19 modeling studies published between March 13th, 2020, and July 31st, 2020. The inter-rater reliability was evaluated by mean percent agreement and Fleiss’ kappa coefficients (κ). Papers were ranked based on the average number of reported reproducibility elements, and average proportion of papers that reported each checklist item were tabulated.
Results Questions related to the computational environment (mean κ = 0.90, range = 0.90–0.90), analytical software (mean κ = 0.74, range = 0.68–0.82), model description (mean κ = 0.71, range = 0.58–0.84), model implementation (mean κ = 0.68, range = 0.39–0.86), and experimental protocol (mean κ = 0.63, range = 0.58–0.69) had moderate or greater (κ > 0.41) inter-rater reliability. Questions related to data had the lowest values (mean κ = 0.37, range = 0.23–0.59). Reviewers ranked similar papers in the upper and lower quartiles based on the proportion of reproducibility elements each paper reported. While over 70% of the publications provided data used in their models, less than 30% provided the model implementation.
Conclusions The IDMRC is the first comprehensive, quality-assessed tool for guiding researchers in reporting reproducible infectious disease computational modeling studies. The inter-rater reliability assessment found that most scores were characterized by moderate or greater agreement. These results suggests that the IDMRC might be used to provide reliable assessments of the potential for reproducibility of published infectious disease modeling publications. Results of this evaluation identified opportunities for improvement to the model implementation and data questions that can further improve the reliability of the checklist.
Competing Interest Statement
Dr. Van Panhuis completed the research described in this paper during his time at the University of Pittsburgh, before starting his position at NIAID.
Funding Statement
This study was funded by the National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS) grant U24GM132013.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript.
