arXiv subjects

Sara Von Hoene

Publications and source records attributed to Sara Von Hoene.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Geographically Weighted Surrogate Models for Rapid Small-Area Chronic Disease Estimation

Small-area estimation (SAE) enables researchers and policymakers to identify spatial disparities in health outcomes, but survey-based SAE products carry an inherent lag. Gold-standard estimates such as CDC PLACES are released roughly two years after the underlying survey data are collected, limiting their use for time-sensitive decision-making. This study evaluates the potential for machine learning (ML) to serve as a surrogate, learning the relationship between frequently updated area-level predictors and existing SAE outputs to generate timely, comparable estimates in years when SAE from surveys are unavailable or delayed. We evaluate several global and geographically weighted ML models for county-level SAE of ten chronic conditions across the US: COPD, asthma, heart disease, arthritis, cancer, depression, diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, and stroke. Our findings suggest that geographically weighted ML frameworks like geographically weighted random forest and geographically weighted regression offer scalable and open data surrogates for rapidly generating SAE and supporting data driven decision making.

q-bio.QM↗

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

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↗