{"about":{"site":"https://codewithpapers.app","non_affiliation":"Code with Papers and Syntology are not affiliated with, endorsed by, or sponsored by Papers with Code, Meta, or the pwc-archive mirror.","licence":"CC BY-SA 4.0","licence_url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode","attribution":"https://codewithpapers.app/attribution","modified":"archive material modified by Syntology; see the attribution page"},"url":"/paper/evaluating-undercounts-in-epidemics-response","title":"Evaluating undercounts in epidemics: response to Maruotti et al. 2022","arxiv_id":"2209.11334","date":"2022-09-22","proceeding":null,"authors":["Michael Li","Jonathan Dushoff","David J. D. Earn","Benjamin M. Bolker"],"abstract":"Maruotti et al. 2022 used a mark-recapture approach to estimate bounds on the true number of monkeypox infections in various countries. These approaches are fundamentally flawed; it is impossible to estimate undercounting based solely on a single stream of reported cases. Simulations based on a Richards curve for cumulative incidence show that, for reasonable epidemic parameters, the proposed methods estimate bounds on the ascertainment ratio of $\\approx 0.2-0.5$ roughly independently of the true ascertainment ratio. These methods should not be used.","url_abs":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2209.11334v1","url_pdf":"https://arxiv.org/pdf/2209.11334v1.pdf","source":{"archive":"pwc-archive (Hugging Face), CC BY-SA 4.0","snapshot":"2025-07-28","licence_url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode","row_kind":"abstracts"},"code_links":[{"paper_slug":"evaluating-undercounts-in-epidemics-response","repo_url":"https://github.com/wzmli/undercount","is_official":1,"mentioned_in_paper":1,"mentioned_in_github":0,"framework":"none","reach":null}],"tasks":[],"methods":[],"datasets_introduced":[],"methods_introduced":[],"results":[],"syntology":{"atlas_url":null,"mcp":null,"developers":"https://syntology.ai/developers"},"arxiv_metadata":null,"syntology_extracted_results":null}