arXiv subjects

Amira Roess

Publications and source records attributed to Amira Roess.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Leveraging Large Language Models for Systematic Literature Review of Disease Spread Models

Recent advancements in Large Language Models (LLMs) have created new opportunities to streamline and potentially automate many research processes, including systematic literature reviews (SLRs). This study reports an LLM pipeline development for extracting model-relevant information from 536 peer-reviewed agent-based modeling papers. We compare the results with those of a human-conducted SLR. Our results show paper-level accuracies of approximately 77.95% for GPT-4.1 and 81.67% for GPT-5.0. Field-level accuracy ranges from 32.40% to 100.00%, with more complex or subjective fields performing less reliably. Importantly, we find that agreement between LLMs is a potential indicator of output quality: low agreement may signal hallucinations, whereas high agreement combined with low accuracy may point to noise or errors in the human dataset. Overall, our study provides practical insights into prompt development and highlights both the potential and limitations of using LLMs for full-scale SLRs in the modeling and simulation domain.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Using Zero-Shot LLM-Generated Survey Data for Geographically Explicit Population Synthesis

There is a growing interest in utilizing synthetic populations for a diverse range of applications. At the same time, we are witnessing a tremendous growth in artificial intelligence in all walks of life. This paper evaluates whether zero-shot large language model (LLM)-generated health survey data can serve as inputs to a conventional iterative proportional fitting (IPF) workflow for geographically explicit population synthesis. Using the 2023 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS), we generate synthetic survey records for the U.S. states of Colorado and Mississippi with GPT-4.1 and Gemini-2.5-Pro. We use the generated data in an IPF-based synthesis pipeline and evaluate the resulting census tract-level synthetic populations against external benchmarks. Results show both LLMs capture several major state-level contrasts, indicating zero-shot generation produces geographically differentiated survey data. However, performance is strongly variable-dependent. Downstream effects in population synthesis are mixed, as IPF sometimes amplifies or reduces errors in the generated data. Spatial validation shows that LLM-based populations reproduce census tract-level patterns reasonably well, especially for variables that were more aligned with the ground truth data. Overall, the LLM-generated survey data shows promise as supplementary input, but not yet as a replacement for real survey data.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2025

Evaluation of A Spatial Microsimulation Framework for Small-Area Estimation of Population Health Outcomes Using the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System

This study introduces the Spatial Health and Population Estimator (SHAPE), a spatial microsimulation framework that applies hierarchical iterative proportional fitting (IPF) to estimate two health risk behaviors and eleven health outcomes across multiple spatial scales. SHAPE was evaluated using county-level direct estimates from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) and both county and census tract level data from CDC PLACES for New York (2021) and Florida (2019). Results show that SHAPE's SAEs are moderately consistent with BRFSS (average Pearson's correlation coefficient r of about 0.5), similar to CDC PLACES (average r of about 0.6), and are strongly aligned with CDC PLACES model-based estimates at both county (average r of about 0.8) and census tract (average r of about 0.7) levels. SHAPE is an open, reproducible, and transparent framework programmed in R that meets a need for accessible SAE methods in public health.

stat.AP↗

arXiv2025

All Models Are Wrong, But Can They Be Useful? Lessons from COVID-19 Agent-Based Models: A Systematic Review

The COVID-19 pandemic prompted a surge in computational models to simulate disease dynamics and guide interventions. Agent-based models (ABMs) are well-suited to capture population and environmental heterogeneity, but their rapid deployment raised questions about utility for health policy. We systematically reviewed 536 COVID-19 ABM studies published from January 2020 to December 2023, retrieved from Web of Science, PubMed, and Wiley on January 30, 2024. Studies were included if they used ABMs to simulate COVID-19 transmission, where reviews were excluded. Studies were assessed against nine criteria of model usefulness, including transparency and re-use, interdisciplinary collaboration and stakeholder engagement, and evaluation practices. Publications peaked in late 2021 and were concentrated in a few countries. Most models explored behavioral or policy interventions (n = 294, 54.85%) rather than real-time forecasting (n = 9, 1.68%). While most described model assumptions (n = 491, 91.60%), fewer disclosed limitations (n = 349, 65.11%), shared code (n = 219, 40.86%), or built on existing models (n = 195, 36.38%). Standardized reporting protocols (n = 36, 6.72%) and stakeholder engagement were rare (13.62%, n = 73). Only 2.24% (n = 12) described a comprehensive validation framework, though uncertainty was often quantified (n = 407, 75.93%). Limitations of this review include underrepresentation of non-English studies, subjective data extraction, variability in study quality, and limited generalizability. Overall, COVID-19 ABMs advanced quickly, but lacked transparency, accessibility, and participatory engagement. Stronger standards are needed for ABMs to serve as reliable decision-support tools in future public health crises.

cs.MA↗