Table 1.
Description of the datasets used in the analyses.
Summary statistics including notation, region, the assay used, the year of testing, the age range of the children participating to the study and the sample sizes.
Fig 1.
Bias, coverage, and degree of uncertainty for seroprevalence and force of infection (FOI) estimates using catalytic and mixture models fitted to simulated datasets (Dataset C).
Bias is calculated as the estimated parameter value minus the true parameter value. Uncertainty is the width of the 95% Confidence intervals (CIs) around the central estimates, calculated using the bootstrap method. The coverage is the percentage of simulations where the estimated CIs contained the true values. The dashed line at 95% shows the threshold for the ideal coverage. For the bias and the uncertainty, the mean and 95% CI across the 509 simulations are given. For the coverage, the 95% exact binomial CI are given.
Fig 2.
True versus estimated seroprevalence and force of infection (FOI) values from the mixture and catalytic models fitted to the simulated datasets (Dataset C).
The catalytic model was run under the assumption that the FOI was time-constant or time-varying. The 95% Confidence Intervals for the estimated values were calculated using a bootstrap method and are shown here as error bars; the point denotes the central estimate. The Pearson’s correlation coefficients (R) are shown. The dashed line represents the line y = x and shows where points would be located in a scenario with zero bias in the estimated values.
Fig 3.
Mixture model fitted to the Vietnamese (A1:A6) and Indonesian (B) datasets.
The distribution of log(titre+1) is shown in dark grey, the fitted mixture model is shown in blue, and the red dashed lines represent the mean antibody titre of each component of the fitted mixture model (μs and μI for the seronegative and seropositive components respectively). Note that the y-axis limits differ for each panel.
Fig 4.
Force of infection (FOI) and total population level seroprevalence (SP) estimates from the mixture model and the catalytic models fitted to the observed data.
The catalytic model was run under the time-constant and time-varying FOI assumption. The 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) which were calculated by bootstrapping for all models are given as error bars. Note that the y-axis limits differ for each panel.
Fig 5.
Age-specific seroprevalence estimates for the IgG data from Vietnam (Dataset A1:A6) and from Indonesia (Dataset B).
Mixture model estimates are in orange, catalytic model estimates are in green and blue when applied under the assumption that the FOI is time-constant or time-varying respectively. Shading represents the 95% Confidence Intervals (CI). The grey points show the observed seroprevalence per age group calculated from the binarily classified IgG data (seropositive individuals / tested individuals), with error bars indicating the 95% exact binomial CIs. The seroprevalence data and model estimates are overlayed for the purpose of comparison. However, it is important to note that the mixture model was not fitted to the data (grey points), as the former does not depend on the titre classification. The size of the grey data points represents the number of individuals tested in each age group.