↓ Skip to main content

Modeling COVID-19 disease processes by remote elicitation of causal Bayesian networks from medical experts

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, March 2023
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
20 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Modeling COVID-19 disease processes by remote elicitation of causal Bayesian networks from medical experts
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, March 2023
DOI 10.1186/s12874-023-01856-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Steven Mascaro, Yue Wu, Owen Woodberry, Erik P. Nyberg, Ross Pearson, Jessica A. Ramsay, Ariel O. Mace, David A. Foley, Thomas L. Snelling, Ann E. Nicholson

Abstract

COVID-19 is a new multi-organ disease causing considerable worldwide morbidity and mortality. While many recognized pathophysiological mechanisms are involved, their exact causal relationships remain opaque. Better understanding is needed for predicting their progression, targeting therapeutic approaches, and improving patient outcomes. While many mathematical causal models describe COVID-19 epidemiology, none have described its pathophysiology. In early 2020, we began developing such causal models. The SARS-CoV-2 virus's rapid and extensive spread made this particularly difficult: no large patient datasets were publicly available; the medical literature was flooded with sometimes conflicting pre-review reports; and clinicians in many countries had little time for academic consultations. We used Bayesian network (BN) models, which provide powerful calculation tools and directed acyclic graphs (DAGs) as comprehensible causal maps. Hence, they can incorporate both expert opinion and numerical data, and produce explainable, updatable results. To obtain the DAGs, we used extensive expert elicitation (exploiting Australia's exceptionally low COVID-19 burden) in structured online sessions. Groups of clinical and other specialists were enlisted to filter, interpret and discuss the literature and develop a current consensus. We encouraged inclusion of theoretically salient latent (unobservable) variables, likely mechanisms by extrapolation from other diseases, and documented supporting literature while noting controversies. Our method was iterative and incremental: systematically refining and validating the group output using one-on-one follow-up meetings with original and new experts. 35 experts contributed 126 hours face-to-face, and could review our products. We present two key models, for the initial infection of the respiratory tract and the possible progression to complications, as causal DAGs and BNs with corresponding verbal descriptions, dictionaries and sources. These are the first published causal models of COVID-19 pathophysiology. Our method demonstrates an improved procedure for developing BNs via expert elicitation, which other teams can implement to model emergent complex phenomena. Our results have three anticipated applications: (i) freely disseminating updatable expert knowledge; (ii) guiding design and analysis of observational and clinical studies; (iii) developing and validating automated tools for causal reasoning and decision support. We are developing such tools for the initial diagnosis, resource management, and prognosis of COVID-19, parameterized using the ISARIC and LEOSS databases.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 20 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 3 15%
Student > Bachelor 2 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 10 50%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Arts and Humanities 1 5%
Chemical Engineering 1 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 5%
Computer Science 1 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 14 70%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 March 2023.
All research outputs
#16,270,144
of 23,972,269 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1,593
of 2,130 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#232,361
of 402,122 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#43
of 61 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,972,269 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,130 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.6. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 402,122 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 61 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.