MNCNH Portfolio

Abbreviations

Abbreviation

Definition

ACMR

All-Cause Mortality Rate

ACS

Antenatal Corticosteroids

AI ultrasound

Artificial Intelligence assisted ultrasound

ANC

Antenatal Care

ASFR

Age-Specific Fertility Rate

BEmONC

Basic Emergency Obstetric and Newborn Care

CEmONC

Comprehensive Emergency Obstetric and Newborn Care

CPAP

Continuous Positive Airway Pressure

CSMR

Cause-Specific Mortality Rate

ENN

Early Neonatal

GBD

Global Burden of Disease

IFA

Iron and Folic Acid

IFD

In-Facility Delivery

IV iron

Intravenous iron

LBW

Low Birth Weight

LBWSG

Low Birth Weight and Short Gestation

LNN

Late Neonatal

MMS

Multiple Micronutrient Supplements

MNCNH

Maternal, Newborn, and Child Nutrition and Health

OL

Obstructed Labor

PAF

Population Attributable Fraction

PPD

Postpartum Depression

PTB

Preterm Birth

RDS

Respiratory Distress Syndrome

RR

Relative Risk

RT

Research Team

SBR

Stillbirth (to live birth) Ratio

V&V

Verification and Validation

WRA

Women of Reproductive Age

YLDs

Years Lived with Disability

YLLs

Years of Life Lost

1.0 Overview

This document is the overall page for the Maternal, Newborn, and Child Nutrition and Health (MNCNH) Portfolio simulation and contains information that relates to all modeled subcomponents included in the simulation.

2.0 Modeling aims and objectives

This simulation aims to answer the research question: What impacts would different (combinations of) interventions have on maternal, newborn, and child nutrition and health outcomes? We model three locations currently: Nigeria, Ethiopia, and Pakistan. We aim to incorporate quite an expansive list of interventions in various stages of development that are under consideration by the Gates Foundation. The “combinations of” part of the research question is crucial – interventions might interact, for example due to prevention reducing the need for treatment down the line.

The MNCNH Portfolio simulation builds on work our team has done in other simulations of pregnancy and early childhood. The most recent was the Nutrition Optimization (NO) simulation, which (as the name suggests) focused particularly on nutrition interventions. That simulation allowed us to estimate the impacts of each intervention, and crucially also how the interventions interacted. “Optimization” refers to the fact that we used the output of the NO sim to calculate optimal allocation of money to have the biggest impact given a budget, taking all these interactions into account.

Nutrition interventions continue to be included in the MNCNH portfolio sim, but the “portfolio” is broader, including non-nutrition interventions as well. As before, we also plan to estimate costs and calculate optimal budget allocation, possibly with improved costing methodology. This page serves as documentation for the simulation part of the project, which is focused on estimating burden under a variety of scenarios designed to surface all the relevant product interactions.

Simulating more interventions means simulating more risks and causes for those interventions to act on, simulating more details of the healthcare system to model how those interventions would be delivered, and including more detail in the intrapartum (labor and delivery) and neonatal time periods.

We plan to complete this work in 3 waves.

  • Wave 1 will include the basic model design, outlines of the healthcare system, and some interventions (AI ultrasound, RDS management).

  • Wave 2 will add in some antenatal supplements (MMS, IV iron), the hemoglobin risk for birthing parents, all downstream causes affected by hemoglobin, and higher level delivery facility interventions.

  • Wave 3 will add in gestational blood pressure and relevant causes and risks including pre-eclampsia care and downstream effects of high blood pressure.

As of February 2026, Wave 1 is complete in both documentation and implementation and Wave 2 is mostly documented and partly implemented.

3.0 Concept model diagram and submodels

As in the NO simulation, rather than simulate an entire population of all ages and sexes, this simulation includes only pregnant people and the neonates they give birth to. We start the simulation with a cohort of simulants all at the beginning of pregnancy, and move them in lockstep through their pregnancies. For those pregnancies that result in a live birth, we then simulate a neonate (we do not model twins) through the first month of life. In this way, our simulation represents all the people who may benefit from the interventions of interest, without wasting computational resources on simulating irrelevant people, such as adult males. We call the potential simulant pair we follow through the simulation (pregnant person and neonate) a “simulant dyad.”

This model is different than NO and other simulations we’ve done in that it follows a decision-tree-like format in which we jump directly to from one decision point to the next rather than taking equal-sized steps through time. For this reason, throughout this model we calculate and express events in terms of probabilities, rather than rates per person-time or similar.

In part because of this unusual handling of time, this model also contains much more “fortune-telling” than a typical sim: instances in which the order that decisions are made in the simulation does not correspond to the real-life order in which events occur. For example, one of the first attributes assigned to each pregnant person, in the initial attributes module, is their broad pregnancy outcome: whether their pregnancy will result in a live/stillbirth, or an abortion/miscarriage/ectopic pregnancy. In real life, however, this doesn’t all get determined at the same time. Whether a pregnancy is ectopic, for example, is determined at the time of implantation (around 3-4 weeks gestation). A full-term pregnancy and one that will end in miscarriage are indistinguishable until the miscarriage occurs, which is much later (up to 24 weeks gestation). Our simulation makes all of these decisions at once by choosing broad pregnancy outcome. The broad pregnancy outcome then informs the attribute of whether and when the pregnant person will attend antenatal care (ANC). This leads to the strange situation that, in our simulation, simulants attending early ANC are already “fated” to have, or not have, a miscarriage, hence the term “fortune-telling.” While odd to think through, this is a valid approach as long as we don’t need to simulate a causal relationship between broad pregnancy outcome and ANC attendance. We have to simulate causal relationships for each step in the pathways between our interventions and outcomes, and these have to be in temporal order; otherwise something an intervention will avert from happening could already have occurred before the intervention has a chance to act. For all relationships between attributes that aren’t in a pathway between an intervention and an outcome, however, the order doesn’t matter. We can choose however is convenient, and often make the choice based on the data that are available, though we should keep in mind that “fortune-telling” does make the model a bit harder to reason about and less intuitive. In the case of broad pregnancy outcome and ANC attendance, we currently don’t model interventions that impact either of these attributes. Even in the future if we modeled an intervention that increased ANC attendance, that intervention wouldn’t act through changing broad pregnancy outcome, hence there is no need to model a causal relationship.

The overall simulation model is divided into four “components,” which are differentiated by the timespan and the simulant that they model.

Warning

When we say “component” here, we mean something distinct from a Vivarium component.

Graphically, the component breakdown looks like this:

../../../_images/component_overview_diagram.drawio.png

Note

Do not interpret the x-axis in this diagram as time, since e.g. the duration of pregnancy is not at all constant. Also, if misinterpreted this way, the x-axis would be wildly not to scale.

However, the only situation in which all components are actually reached for a given simulant dyad is the case in which the pregnancy results in a live birth and the birthing person survives childbirth. In other situations, some components will not be reached. The rules by which components flow into other components are as follows:

  • All simulant dyads start at the pregnancy component.

  • If the birth outcome from the pregnancy component is a live or stillbirth (NOT abortion/miscarriage/ectopic pregnancy), proceed to the intrapartum component. Otherwise, skip to the postpartum component.

  • At the end of the intrapartum component, if the birth outcome from the pregnancy component is a live birth, proceed to the neonatal component. Otherwise, if the birth parent survives childbirth, proceed to the postpartum component.

  • At the end of the neonatal component, if the birth parent survived childbirth in the intrapartum component, proceed to the postpartum component.

Here is a graphic representation of the same information:

../../../_images/component_flow_diagram.drawio.png

Each component is further subdivided into “modules,” which are organized by topic (rather than by time/simulant as in the components). Each module may have some simulant dyad attributes as input (values it needs) and some simulant dyad attributes as output (values it initializes). Module outputs may be used as inputs to other modules and/or serve as information for verification and validation and/or simulation results. For clarity, in the tables below we will write the modules in an order that satisfies the following property: each variable is defined as a module output prior to being used as a module input. This helps us make sure we aren’t creating any cyclic dependencies. Technically, any order satisfying this property is an equivalent, valid order in which the modules could be run in the simulation.

Note

There is a template to use when creating new module pages.

Pregnancy component

Pregnancy Component Modules

Module

Inputs

Outputs

Nested subcomponents

Initial attributes

  • Maternal age at end of pregnancy

  • Broad pregnancy outcome (live/stillbirth vs abortion/miscarriage/ectopic)

  • ANC propensity

  • LBWSG category propensity

  • IFD propensity

  • Anemia intervention propensity

Antenatal care

  • Broad pregnancy outcome

  • ANC propensity

  • First trimester ANC attendance

  • Later pregnancy ANC attendance

  • ANC attendance category

Hemoglobin at the start of pregnancy

  • Maternal age at end of pregnancy

  • Hemoglobin at the start of pregnancy

First trimester hemoglobin

  • Hemoglobin at the start of pregnancy

  • First trimester ANC attendance

  • Anemia intervention propensity

  • Hemoglobin after first trimester ANC visit

  • Coverage of IFA/MMS at first trimester ANC visit

Anemia screening

  • Hemoglobin after first trimester ANC visit

  • Later pregnancy ANC attendance

  • Anemia intervention propensity

  • Hemoglobin screening (test hemoglobin) coverage/result

  • Ferritin screening coverage/result

  • True hemoglobin exposure (dichotomous)

Hemoglobin at the end of pregnancy

  • Hemoglobin after first trimester ANC visit

  • Later pregnancy ANC attendance

  • Hemoglobin screening coverage/result

  • Ferritin screening coverage/result

  • Receipt of IFA/MMS at first trimester ANC visit

  • Hemoglobin at end of pregnancy

  • Coverage of IFA/MMS at any time in pregnancy

  • Coverage of IV iron

Pregnancy

  • Broad pregnancy outcome

  • LBWSG category propensity

  • Coverage of IFA/MMS at any time in pregnancy (affects birth outcome, gestational age, birthweight)

  • Coverage of IV iron (affects birth outcome, gestational age, birthweight)

  • Pregnancy outcome (live birth vs stillbirth vs abortion/miscarriage/ectopic)

  • Gestational age at end of pregnancy

  • Preterm status

  • Sex of infant

  • Birthweight

AI ultrasound

  • ANC attendance category

  • Gestational age at end of pregnancy

  • Ultrasound summary

  • Estimated gestational age

  • Believed preterm status

Intrapartum component

Note

Only live births or stillbirths (NOT abortions/miscarriages/ectopic pregnancies) will proceed to the intrapartum component, as described above. Both antepartum and intrapartum stillbirths will proceed to the intrapartum component. However, antepartum stillbirths will only be eligible for intrapartum interventions that act on maternal health (such as misoprostol and azithromycin) and will not be eligible for intrapartum interventions intended for neonatal health (such as antenatal corticosteroids) as the fetus will have already passed prior to the onset of labor, but delivery of the fetal remains will still be necessary. Intrapartum stillbirths will remain eligible for all intrapartum interventions.

Warning

As currently designed, the intrapartum component models an intervention for misoprostol to prevent postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) in home birth settings only. We do not consider any interventions for PPH prevention at facility settings nor do we model the expected greater incidence of PPH in home settings relative to facility settings.

Therefore, as written, the incidence of PPH by delivery setting will be miscalibrated to the expectation in reality. We plan to continue with the implementing the model as written while noting this limitation until we implement a strategy to address this (see related ticket here)

Intrapartum Component Modules

Module

Inputs

Outputs

Nested subcomponents

Facility choice

  • IFD propensity

  • Believed preterm status

  • IFD status

  • Birth facility

Intrapartum interventions

  • Birth facility

  • Believed gestational age

  • ANC attendance

  • Intrapartum azithromycin coverage

  • Antenatal corticosteroid coverage

  • Misoprostol coverage

Maternal disorders

  • Maternal disorders outcomes (see outcome table)

Neonatal component

Note

Only live births proceed to the neonatal component, as described above.

Neonatal Component Modules

Module

Inputs

Outputs

Nested subcomponents

Neonatal module

  • Birth facility

  • Birth weight

  • Gestational age

  • RDS intervention propensity

  • Hemoglobin exposure at birth (affects neonatal sepsis)

  • Sex of infant (determines sex-specific mortality rates)

  • Neonatal probiotics coverage

  • CPAP coverage

  • Neonatal mortality outcomes (see outcome table)

Postpartum component

Postpartum Component Modules

Module

Inputs

Outputs

Nested subcomponents

Postpartum hemoglobin

  • Hemoglobin at end of pregnancy

  • Maternal hemorrhage incidence

  • Hemoglobin during the first six weeks after the end of pregnancy

  • Hemoglobin between six weeks and nine months after the end of pregnancy

Anemia YLDs

  • Hemoglobin at start of pregnancy

  • Hemoglobin at end of pregnancy

  • Hemoglobin during the first six weeks after the end of pregnancy

  • Hemoglobin between six weeks and nine months after the end of pregnancy

  • IFA/MMS coverage

  • IV iron coverage

  • First trimester ANC attendance

  • Pregnancy duration

  • Anemia YLDs

Postpartum depression

  • Hemoglobin at end of pregnancy

  • Maternal disorders outcomes (see outcome table)

Concept Model Map:

Please note that this is designed as a helpful visual aid, but is not designed to be fully inclusive of all work or modeled components.

Pregnancy, influenced by ANC attendance

../../../_images/pregnancy_figure_overview.png

Intrapartum, influenced by delivery facility

../../../_images/intrapartum_figure_overview.png

Neonatal, influenced by neonatal care facility

../../../_images/neonatal_figure_overview.png

3.1 Scenario information

Note

Scenarios were reworked for model version 18.4. To see the definition of scenarios used for prior models, see the record in this pull request. Note that scenario design for this simulation is expected to undergo an additional future rework to achieve compatibility with an “emulator” design.

Pregnancy component scenario-dependent variables

Scenario

Ultrasound coverage

Ultrasound type

Oral iron coverage

Hemoglobin screening coverage

Ferritin screening coverage

IV iron coverage

Note

  1. Baseline

Defined in the baseline coverage section of the AI ultrasound module page

Defined in the baseline coverage section of the AI ultrasound module page

Defined in the baseline coverage section of the oral iron supplementation page (use the baseline_ifa_at_anc parameter to determine individual coverage among simulants who attend ANC)

Defined in the baseline coverage section of the anemia screening intervention page

Defined in the baseline coverage section of the anemia screening intervention page

Defined in the baseline coverage section of the IV iron page

  1. CPAP and ACS scale-up

Baseline

Baseline

Baseline

Baseline

Baseline

Baseline

  1. CPAP, ACS, and AI-ultrasound scale-up

100%

100% AI-assisted

Baseline

Baseline

Baseline

Baseline

When compared to 2, shows how AI ultrasound–>facility choice pathway can improve outcomes by having more preterm deliveries deliver in facility settings

  1. Neonatal antibiotics scale-up

Baseline

Baseline

Baseline

Baseline

Baseline

Baseline

  1. Neonatal probiotics scale-up

Baseline

Baseline

Baseline

Baseline

Baseline

Baseline

  1. Azithromycin scale-up

Baseline

Baseline

Baseline

Baseline

Baseline

Baseline

  1. AI ultrasound scale-up

100% at ANC (no ultrasound among those who do not attend ANC)

100% AI-assisted

Baseline

Baseline

Baseline

Baseline

  1. Standard ultrasound scale-up

100% at ANC (no ultrasound among those who do not attend ANC)

100% standard

Baseline

Baseline

Baseline

Baseline

  1. Full product scale-up, October 2025

100% at ANC (no ultrasound among those who do not attend ANC)

100% AI-assisted

Baseline

Baseline

Baseline

Baseline

Not including anemia related interventions in this run as implementation of all model components is incomplete as of October 2025

  1. MMS scale-up

Baseline

Baseline

100% MMS

Baseline

Baseline

Baseline

  1. Anemia screening and IV iron scale-up

Baseline

Baseline

Baseline

100%

100%

100%

  1. Azithromycin V&V

Baseline

Baseline

Baseline

Baseline

Baseline

Baseline

  1. Misoprostol V&V

Baseline

Baseline

Baseline

Baseline

Baseline

Baseline

  1. No ACS and total CPAP V&V

Baseline

Baseline

Baseline

Baseline

Baseline

Baseline

  1. Total ACS and CPAP V&V

Baseline

Baseline

Baseline

Baseline

Baseline

Baseline

  1. Total ACS and no CPAP V&V

Baseline

Baseline

Baseline

Baseline

Baseline

Baseline

  1. Ultrasound V&V

100% at ANC (no ultrasound among those who do not attend ANC)

50% standard US, 50% AI-assisted US

Baseline

Baseline

Baseline

Baseline

  1. Anemia screening V&V

Baseline

Baseline

Baseline

100% of eligible population

100% of eligible population

Baseline

Intrapartum component scenario-dependent variables

Scenario

Azithromycin coverage

Corticosteroid coverage

Misoprostol coverage

Note

  1. Baseline

Defined on intrapartum intervention model document

Defined on intrapartum intervention model document

Defined on intrapartum intervention model document

  1. CPAP and ACS scale-up

Baseline

100% at BEmONC and CEmONC, baseline at home

Baseline

  1. CPAP, ACS, and AI-assisted ultrasound scale-up

Baseline

100% at BEmONC and CEmONC, baseline at home

Baseline

  1. Neonatal antibiotics scale-up

Baseline

Baseline

Baseline

  1. Neonatal probiotics scale-up

Baseline

Baseline

Baseline

  1. Azithromycin scale-up

100% at BEmONC and CEmONC, baseline at home

Baseline

Baseline

  1. AI-assisted ultrasound scale-up

Baseline

Baseline

Baseline

  1. Standard ultrasound scale-up

Baseline

Baseline

Baseline

  1. Full product scale-up, October 2025

100% at BEmONC and CEmONC, baseline at home

100% at BEmONC and CEmONC, baseline at home

Baseline

Not including misoprostol scale-up in this run because as of October 2025 we have known calibration issues with our hemorrhage model by delivery facility setting

  1. MMS scale-up

Baseline

Baseline

Baseline

  1. Anemia screening and IV iron scale-up

Baseline

Baseline

Baseline

  1. Azithromycin V&V

50% at BEmONC and CEmONC, baseline at home

0%

0%

  1. Misoprostol V&V

0%

0%

50% among eligible population (attends ANC and delivers at home)

  1. No ACS and total CPAP V&V

Baseline

0% coverage at all delivery location types

Baseline

see neonatal table for CPAP coverage

  1. Total ACS and CPAP V&V

Baseline

100% coverage at BEmONC and CEmONC facilities, baseline at home

Baseline

see neonatal table for CPAP coverage

  1. Total ACS and no CPAP V&V

Baseline

100% coverage at BEmONC and CEmONC facilities, baseline at home

Baseline

see neonatal table for CPAP coverage

  1. Ultrasound V&V

Baseline

Baseline

Baseline

  1. Anemia screening V&V

Baseline

Baseline

Baseline

Neonatal component scenario-dependent variables

Scenario

CPAP coverage

Antibiotics coverage

Probiotics coverage

Note

  1. Baseline

Defined on the CPAP intervention model document

Defined on the neonatal antibiotic intervention document

Defined on the probiotics intervention model document

Baseline coverage values are delivery facility-specific

  1. CPAP and ACS scale-up

100% at BEMONC and CEMONC, baseline at home

Baseline

Baseline

  1. CPAP, ACS, and AI-assisted ultrasound scale-up

100% at BEMONC and CEMONC, baseline at home

Baseline

Baseline

  1. Neonatal antibiotics scale-up

Baseline

100% coverage

Baseline

  1. Probiotics total scale-up

Baseline

Baseline

100% at CEMONC and BEMONC, baseline at home

  1. Azithromycin scale-up

Baseline

Baseline

Baseline

  1. AI-assisted ultrasound scale-up

Baseline

Baseline

Baseline

  1. Standard ultrasound scale-up

Baseline

Baseline

Baseline

  1. Full product scale-up

100% at BEMONC and CEMONC, baseline at home

100%

100% at BEMONC and CEMONC, baseline at home

  1. MMS scale-up

Baseline

Baseline

Baseline

  1. Anemia screening and IV iron scale-up

Baseline

Baseline

Baseline

  1. Azithromycin V&V

Baseline

Baseline

Baseline

  1. Misoprostol V&V

Baseline

Baseline

Baseline

  1. No ACS and total CPAP V&V

100% coverage at BEmONC and CEmONC facilities, baseline at home

Baseline

Baseline

See intrapartum table for ACS coverage

  1. Total ACS and CPAP V&V

100% coverage at BEmONC and CEmONC facilities, baseline at home

Baseline

Baseline

See intrapartum table for ACS coverage

  1. Total ACS and no CPAP V&V

0% coverage at all delivery location types

Baseline

Baseline

See intrapartum table for ACS coverage

  1. Ultrasound V&V

Baseline

Baseline

Baseline

  1. Anemia screening V&V

Baseline

Baseline

Baseline

4.0 Outputs/Observers

Specific observer outputs and their stratifications may vary by model run as needs change. Modifications to default will be noted in the model run requests tables. Note that the observers and outputs listed here are different from the module outputs above. The outputs of the module are intended to be intermediate values that may or may not be included as observed simulated outputs.

Default stratifications to all observers should include scenario and input draw.

Note

Observers cannot support more than 15 stratifications. Design of simulation observers should take this into account.

Simulation observers

Observer

Default stratifications

Note

  1. Maternal disorders burden: cause-specific cases, deaths, YLLs, and YLDs

  • Maternal age group

  • Pregnancy outcome

  • Delivery facility

  • Azithromycin coverage

  • Misoprostol coverage

  1. Births (this observer includes ALL pregnancy outcomes, including abortion/miscarriage/ectopic pregnancies that may not typically be considered “births”)

  • Pregnancy outcome

  • Child sex

  • Delivery facility type

  • Antibiotics availability

  • Probiotics availability

  • CPAP availability

  • Corticosteroid coverage

  • ACS eligibility (dichotomous, ‘eligible’ if believed gestational age is between 26-33 weeks, ‘not eligible’ if gestational age is outside of this range)

  • Preterm status (dichotomous at 37 weeks)

  1. Neonatal deaths (cause-specific)

  • Child sex

  • Child age group

  • Delivery facility type

  • CPAP availability

  • Antibiotics availability

  • Probiotics availability

  • Corticosteroid coverage

  • ACS eligibility (dichotomous, ‘eligible’ if believed gestational age is between 26-33 weeks, ‘not eligible’ if gestational age is outside of this range)

  • Preterm status (dichotomous at 37 weeks)

  1. Antibiotics eligible birth counts

  • Delivery facility type

Included. Confirm this represents “eligible birth counts”?

  1. CPAP eligible birth counts

  • Delivery facility type

Included. Confirm this represents “eligible birth counts”?

  1. Probiotics eligible birth counts

  • Delivery facility type

Included. Confirm this represents “eligible birth counts”?

7a. Maternal population counts: hemoglobin-related parameters

  • Maternal age group

  • Pregnancy outcome

  • ANC attendance (polychotomous)

  • Oral iron coverage (ifa/mms/none)

  • IV iron coverage

  • True hemoglobin exposure (‘low’ if truly low hemoglobin and ‘adequate’ if truly adequate hemoglobin at time of screening)

  • Test hemoglobin exposure (‘low’ if tested low hemoglobin,’adequate’ if tested adequate hemoglobin, ‘not_tested’ if not tested)

  • Ferritin status (dichotomous, ‘low’ if low ferritin, ‘adequate’ if adequate ferritin, ‘not_tested’ if not tested)

  • Preterm status (dichotomous at 37 weeks)

7b. Maternal population counts: other parameters

  • Maternal age group

  • Pregnancy outcome

  • ANC attendance (polychotomous)

  • Ultrasound coverage

  • Delivery facility

  • Preterm status (dichotomous at 37 weeks)

  • Believed preterm status (dichotomous at 37 weeks)

  • ACS eligibility (dichotomous, ‘eligible’ if believed gestational age is between 26-33 weeks, ‘not eligible’ if gestational age is outside of this range)

  • ACS coverage

  • Azithromycin coverage

  • Misoprostol coverage

  1. Neonatal all-cause mortality risk

  • Child sex

  • Child age group

  • Delivery facility type

  • CPAP availability

  • Antibiotics availability

  • Probiotics availability

  • Corticosteroid coverage

  • ACS eligibility (dichotomous, ‘eligible’ if believed gestational age is between 26-33 weeks, ‘not eligible’ if gestational age is outside of this range)

  • Preterm status (dichotomous at 37 weeks)

Observe the following statistics about the \(\text{ACMRisk}_i\) value described on the neonatal mortality page, which is implemented as the death_in_age_group_probability pipeline in the simulation (see code):

  • The number of values (equal to the number of living simulants)

  • The sum of the values

  • The sum of the squares of the values

All of these quantities can aggregate across seeds in the normal way (summation).

  1. Neonatal cause-specific mortality risks (per cause)

  • Child sex

  • Child age group

  • Delivery facility type

  • CPAP availability

  • Antibiotics availability

  • Probiotics availability

  • Corticosteroid coverage

  • ACS eligibility (dichotomous, ‘eligible’ if believed gestational age is between 26-33 weeks, ‘not eligible’ if gestational age is outside of this range)

  • Preterm status (dichotomous at 37 weeks)

Observe the following statistics about the \(\text{CSMRisk}^k_i\) value described on the neonatal mortality page, which is implemented as the csmr pipeline on each cause in the simulation – not to be confused with the cause_specific_mortality_risk pipeline which does not include intervention effects (see code):

  • The number of values (equal to the number of living simulants)

  • The sum of the values

  • The sum of the squares of the values

All of these quantities can aggregate across seeds in the normal way (summation).

  1. Impossible neonatal CSMRisk

  • Child sex

  • Child age group

  • Delivery facility type

  • CPAP availability

  • Antibiotics availability

  • Probiotics availability

  • Corticosteroid coverage

  • ACS eligibility (dichotomous, ‘eligible’ if believed gestational age is between 26-33 weeks, ‘not eligible’ if gestational age is outside of this range)

  • Preterm status (dichotomous at 37 weeks)

For each living simulant, take the modeled-cause CSMRisks (same pipelines as used in the previous observer), divide them each by the ACMRisk (same pipeline as observer #8), sum them and then subtract 1. If negative, clip this value to zero. This emulates the factor by which the modeled-cause CSMRisk exceeds ACMRisk, requiring a hack to prevent other-causes CSMRisk from being negative.

Then observe:

  • The number of values (equal to the number of living simulants)

  • The number of nonzero values

  • The sum of the values

  • The sum of the squares of the values

All of these quantities can aggregate across seeds in the normal way (summation).

  1. Anemia YLDs

  • Maternal age group

  • Pregnancy outcome

  • Anemia status (not_anemic, mild, moderate, severe)

  • Pregnancy outcome

  • Timestep

Inclusive of anemia YLDs accrued during pregnancy and the postpartum period

  1. Anemia person-time

  • Maternal age group

  • Anemia status (not_anemic, mild, moderate, severe)

  • Pregnancy outcome

  • Timestep

Inclusive of anemia person-time accrued during pregnancy and the postpartum period

Todo

Determine whether we want to continue to have duplicate information like:

  • Stratifying the birth observer by neonatal interventions,

  • AND separately observing neonatal intervention counts

5.0 Model runs

Default simulation specifications

Parameter

Value

Note

Location(s)

  • Ethiopia (ID: 179)

  • Nigeria (ID: 214)

  • Pakistan (ID: 165)

Number of draws

10

See next row for which specific draws to be used. Based on calculations from the Nutrition Optimization project: production run number divided in half for default V&V runs

Draw numbers

115, 60, 118, 197, 79, 244, 22, 167, 146, 71, 28, 156, 94, 170, 109, 26, 35, 114, 178, 127

The standard number of draws available for most of our model input parameters is 500 for GBD 2021 and 250 for GBD 2023. There are a few instances where our input data have different numbers of draws available. Those instances are summarized in the table following this one. To account for the varying number of draws available for our input data, we will pre-specify which draws to select according to the numbers listed here. 20 draws have been listed although the default number of draws for V&V model runs is 10 - the first 10 numbers in this list should be used for V&V runs.

This list of numbers was first generated for GBD 2021 data starting in model 11.0 by sampling a random number between 0 and 499 and resampling when a number was generated that had the same remainder after dividing by 100 or 250 as a number that was already in the list. This strategy ensures that we do not run multiple draws that have identical data for any parameter in our model. These draws included: [115, 60, 368, 197, 79, 244, 272, 167, 146, 71, 278, 406, 94, 420, 109, 26, 35, 114, 428, 218]. The final number in the list (218) was updated from (170) in September of 2025 to account for new input data with 250 draws.

This list was later updated for GBD 2023 data starting in model 19.0 by taking the remainder of each number in the GBD 2021 list after dividing by 250 and re-sampling a new value for 218 (which had a duplicate value % 100 as another number in the list).

Population size per draw

200,000

Based on calculations from the Nutrition Optimization project

Randomness key columns

[‘entrance_time’,’age’]

Note that each row of the population table in this simulation contains a pregnant simulant AND the outcome of that simulant’s pregnancy. Therefore, the conversion of a stillbirth to a live birth between simulated scenarios in this simulation will not result in a new row added to the simulation state table and therefore will not change the state table index value of other simulants like occured in the IV iron simulation and resulted in disruptions to common random numbers between scenarios. Therefore, these randomness key columns are expected to be sufficient for this simulation.

Age start (initialization)

10

Applies to pregnant population only

Age end (initialization)

54

Applies to pregnant population only

Age start (observation)

N/A. All pregnant simulants observed from start of pregnancy. All neonatal simulants observed from birth.

Age end (observation)

N/A; All pregnant simulants observed through conclusion of relevant modeled outcomes. All neonatal simulants observed until 28 days (end of late neonatal age group)

Pregnant/birthing simulants do not age in this simulation

Summary of draw metadata by input parameter

Parameter

Number of draws

Strategy for GBD 2021 (Models <19.0)

Strategy for GBD 2023 (Models 19.0+)

Note/reference

Standard GBD data

500 for GBD 2021, 250 for GBD 2023

Use 500 draws as is

Use 250 draws as-is

Hemoglobin risk exposure (using GBD 2023 data)

100

Copy 5 times so that draw 1, 101, 201, 301, and 401 all have the same value, etc.

Copy 2.5 times so that draw 1, 101, and 201 all have the same value. Note that draws 0-49 will be used three times and draws 50-99 will be used twice.

Hemoglobin risk effects, including those on stillbirth, gestational age, and birthweight that are modeled through the IV iron intervention model

250

Copy twice so that draw 1 and 251 have the same value, etc.

Use as is

Note that we have ordered the draws for hemoglobin RRs on gestational age, birth weight, and neonatal sepsis in the same order as we are modeling mediation by gestational age and birthweight in the effect of hemoglobin on neonatal sepsis and therefore expect that these draws will be correlated.

Delivery facility type probabilities

100

Copy 5 times so that draw 1, 101, 201, 301, and 401 all have the same value, etc.

Copy 2.5 times so that draw 1, 101, and 201 all have the same value. Note that draws 0-49 will be used three times and draws 50-99 will be used twice.

Note

“Number” is only listed here for models that have already been run. When a model is run, its number is assigned in this excel run tracker. The number will be added to this table when V&V results are posted.

The “blocked by” column only applies to models that have not yet been run. When there is nothing in this column, a model is unblocked and can be implemented. There is no explicit ordering besides this dependency tree for not-yet-run models.

When a model is run and V&Ved successfully, it should be removed from the “blocked by” column for any other model that was blocked by it.

Note

Moving forward, the results for each model should be stored in a subdirectory nested within mnt/team/simulation_science/pub/models/vivarium_gates_mncnh/results/ where the subdirectory name is the model number with “model” prepended to it; for example, modelX.Y.Z. The subdirectory names did not match the model numbers before model 6.1, and are given in parentheses next to the model number for older models.

Model runs

Number

Short name

Description

Scenarios

Spec. modifications

Blocked by

1 (pregnancy)

Wave I Pregnancy V&V

Baseline

2 (maternal_disorders)

Wave I Maternal disorders V&V

Baseline

3 (neonatal_disorders)

Wave I Neonatal disorders V&V

Baseline

3.1 (neonatal_disorders, it seems this overwrote the previous)

Wave I Neonatal disorders V&V with correct LBWSG distribution

Baseline

3.2 (no_lbwsg)

Wave I Neonatal disorders V&V with LBWSG component removed

Baseline

3.3 (risk_effects)

Wave I Neonatal disorders V&V with early NN observer bugfix

Baseline

4.1 (cpap)

Wave I CPAP

Baseline

4.2 (cpap_2)

Wave I CPAP with observer for counts per facility type

Baseline

4.3 (cpap_3)

Wave I CPAP with addition of a delivery facility column

Addition of a delivery facility column in births observer and CPAP availability stratification in neonatal burden observer

Baseline

4.4 (cpap_4)

Wave I CPAP with updated facility determination

Baseline

4.5 (cpap_5)

Wave I CPAP with mortality bugfix

Bugfix for negative other causes mortality rates

Baseline

4.6 (cpap_full_scenarios)

Wave I CPAP with scale-up scenarios

Baseline and alternative scenarios 2, 3, and 4

4.7 (birth_exposure_2)

Correct pregnancy duration for abortion/miscarriage/ectopic pregnancies

Baseline and alternative scenarios 2, 3, and 4

5.0 (antibiotics)

Wave I neonatal antibiotics with scale-up scenarios

Baseline and alternative scenarios 2 - 7

5.1 (children_mapped)

Wave I neonatal antibiotics refactor

Engineer refactor

Baseline and alternative scenarios 2 - 7

6.0 (probiotics)

Wave I neonatal probiotics with scale-up scenarios

Baseline and alternative scenarios 2 - 10

6.0.1 (no_interventions)

Wave I neonatal disorders ACMR 200k

200k population without interventions

Baseline

Population increased 10 fold (random seed population size changed from 20k to 200k)

6.0.2 (acmr-2mil)

Wave I neonatal disorders ACMR 2M

2 million population

Baseline

Population increased 100 fold (random seed population size changed from 20k to 2 million)

6.0.3 (rate_conversion)

Wave I neonatal disorders ACMR with rate conversion

Rate to probability conversion

Baseline

6.0.4 (raw_csmr)

Wave I neonatal disorders ACMR with raw CSMR

Baseline

6.1

LBWSG PAF changes for Ethiopia

  1. fix sex-specificity bug in LBWSG PAF calculation, and (2) use LBWSG exposure at birth for calculation of the ENN LBWSG PAF

All scenarios

6.2

Exponential rate-to-probability conversion

Same specifications as model 6.1, but this time with the exponential rate-to-probability conversion (\(p= 1 - e^{(-\text{rate} * \text{duration scaling factor})}\)) in this function

Baseline

Birth observer updated from output of state table (single row per simulant) to observer detailed in the observer section for all subsequent model runs

6.2.1

Fix rate-to-probability equation

Same as 6.2, but with a fix for this rate to probability equation transcription error (add back in the duration_scaling_factor) and include abortion/miscarriage/ectopic pregnancy fix to birth observer

Baseline

6.3

ENN LBWSG PAF using ENN exposure

Same specifications as model 6.2 (including the exponential rate-to-probability calculation), but with ENN LBWSG PAF updated to use the ENN LBWSG exposure prevalence rather than the LBWSG exposure at birth

Baseline

6.4

Revert to linear rate-to-probability

Same specifications as model 6.3 (including the ENN LBWSG PAF using ENN exposure), but with the revision of the rate-to-probability calculation back to \(p = \text{rate} * \text{duration scaling factor}\)

Baseline

6.5

Add maternal population observer

  • Use the birth prevalence to calculate the LBWSG PAF for the early neonatal age group (like in model run 6.1). Use this until otherwise noted.

  • Use the linear rate-to-probability equation (like in model run 6.1). Use this until otherwise noted.

  • Add in observer #7 (maternal population observer)

All scenarios

Maternal population observer added for this run and to be included in all subsequent runs

7.0

Wave I neonatal probiotics with effective coverage

Same as model 6.0 but with effective coverage (only preterm neonates receive probiotics)

Baseline and alternative scenarios 2 - 10

Stratify probiotics observer (#6) with gestational age above/below 37 weeks for V&V

7.0.1

Add preterm stratification and fix observers

Same specifications as 7.0, but with preterm stratification for the probiotics observer included (left out of last run) and fix to the intervention observers to not count stillbirths

All scenarios

  • Stratify probiotics observer (#6) by gestational age above/below 37 weeks for V&V

  • Stratify births observer by gestational age above/below 37 weeks

  • Stratify neonatal deaths observer by gestational age above/below 37 weeks

7.0.2

Update preterm birth parameter

Update \(p_\text{preterm}\) parameter used in the preterm cause model to use birth exposure rather than age-specific exposure

All scenarios

Default

7.1

Update neonatal mortality to risks

Update mortality input data and remove rate to probability conversion: see this PR for full details and accounting of updates. Use the birth LBWSG exposure for calculation of the ENN LBWSG PAF. Use the LNN LBWSG exposure for calculation of the LNN LBWSG PAF. Note that this is incorrect, but an acceptable placeholder until we update in model run 7.2

Baseline

Same modifications as run 7.0.1:

  • Stratify probiotics observer (#6) by gestational age above/below 37 weeks for V&V

  • Stratify births observer by gestational age above/below 37 weeks

  • Stratify neonatal deaths observer by gestational age above/below 37 weeks

7.1.1

Add CPAP parameter uncertainty

Add parameter uncertainty interval for CPAP effect size

All scenarios

Same as 7.0.1

8.0

Wave I azithromycin

All scenarios (note new azithromycin scale-up scenario #11)

Azithromycin stratifications added to observers #1 and #7 (maternal burden and maternal population observers) - to be continued as defaults for all future runs

8.1

Cap LBWSG RRs

  • Implement LBWSG RR caps (applied to both the ENN and LNN age groups)

  • Recalculate LBWSG PAFs with capped RRs

Baseline

Same modifications as run 7.0.1

8.2

Update neonatal probiotics effect size

Update intervention effect size in accordance with line #183 in this PR

All scenarios

Same modifications as run 7.0.1

8.3

Update antibiotics modeling strategy

Update intervention modeling strategy in accordance with this PR

All scenarios (note that scenarios #6 and #7 have been deleted as they are no longer relevant and scenario #5 no longer has delivery facility-specific coverage)

Default

9.0

Wave I misoprostol

Baseline and #12

Note misoprostol coverage added as a stratifying variable to maternal disorders burden and maternal population observers and delivery facility as a stratifying variable for the maternal disorders burden observer

9.1

Antibiotics bugfix for home deliveries

Bugfix to scale up intervention among home deliveries as well

All scenarios

Default

9.2

Larger population for obstructed labor V&V

Larger population size to confirm maternal obstructed labor is not affected by azithromycin

All scenarios

10x larger population size (100 seeds of 20_000 population size each = 2_000_000 population size per draw) and 2x as many draws for a total of 20 draws

9.3

Additional stratifications for intrapartum V&V

Updated intervention scenario coverage for intrapartum intervention V&V

All scenarios – Note changes to scenario numbers 11 and 12

  • Same population size as previous

  • Make sure maternal disorders burden is stratified by delivery facility and pregnancy outcome as specified

10.0

Add postpartum depression

Postpartum depression added as new maternal disorder cause

Baseline

Note that postpartum depression cause should be added to the maternal disorders burden observer

10.1

Remove LBWSG effect on neonatal encephalopathy

Run with no effect between LBWSG risk factor and Neonatal encephalopathy due to birth asphyxia and birth trauma (but keep LBWSG effects on all other outcomes)

All scenarios

Default

10.2

Same as “Add postpartum depression” with scenario #13

Additional scenario #13 (azithromycin results)

All scenarios

Default

11.0

Add hemoglobin risk exposure model

Add Hemoglobin risk exposure model. Note that this will be the starting point for the larger wave II hemoglobin module, which will be built out in future model runs

Baseline

Default (no new hemoglobin observer required)

11.1

VPH LBWSG refactor bugfix

Bugfix to VPH LBWSG refactor to ensure that LBWSG exposure at birth (rather than the early neonatal exposure) is used for initializing LBWSG exposures in the simulation. Note that this VPH refactor was introduced between models 8.2/8.3 and 9.0 and persisted until this run.

Baseline

Default

11.2

Update draws for GBD 2021

Update draws in accordance with this PR

Baseline

Default

12.0

Cap LBWSG RRs and new LNN PAF

New late neonatal LBWSG PAF calculation, in accordance with vivarium research PR #1681 and subsequent update in PR #1716

Baseline

Default

12.1

Preterm prevalence calculation bugfix

Bugfix to calculation of prevalence of preterm in this equation, to ensure we include categories with an upper bound of 37 weeks

Baseline

Default

12.1.1

Update LNN LBWSG PAF calculation

Update to LBWSG PAF calculation for the late neonatal age group. In model 12.0, the PAF calculation for the late neonatal age group did not use the PAF as calculated for the early neonatal age group in the determination of mortality among the early neonatal age group (the PAF using capped and interpolated RRs), as specified in the documentation. This model run will update the LNN LBWSG PAF calculation to utilize the custom calculated ENN LBWSG PAF as specified in the documentation.

Baseline

Default

13.0

Hemoglobin risk effects on maternal disorders

Effects on maternal disorders

Baseline

Default

13.1

Update hemoglobin PAF values and RR handling

  • Update hemoglobin on maternal disorders PAF values to be location specific (rather than using location_id=1)

  • Allow for RRs <1 for values above (and below) the hemoglobin TMREL value

  • Assign RR values equal to the RR value at 40 g/L for all hemoglobin exposures less than 40 g/L

Baseline

Default

13.2

Fix LBWSG PAF calculation bugs

Update to correct bugs in the LBWSG PAF calculation’s implementation of this equation. In earlier model runs, the PAF calculation for late neonates began from age-specific LBWSG prevalence and the mortality-based weighting implemented did not work due to all deaths being excluded by population filters. Instead, in this run, the PAF calculation for late neonates should begin from birth prevalence and properly apply the mortality-based weighting, as documented.

Baseline

Default

13.3

Update LNN preterm prevalence calculation

Update to use end-of-ENN LBWSG prevalence for the \(p_\text{preterm}\) for the LNN age group in this equation. Details can be found in the diff of this pull request.

Baseline

Default

14.0

Wave II antenatal care attendance

Updates to the antenatal care attendance module

Baseline

Default, note that we would like the 4-category ANC attendance variable observed

15.0

Delivery facility choice model

Delivery facility choice model, including updates to the AI Ultrasound module

Baseline

Added preterm status and believed preterm status to maternal population observer (#7)

15.1

Fix ANC attendance bug and add stratifications

  1. add preterm and believed preterm status to maternal population count observer and (2) fix bug that results in 0% ANC attendance

Baseline

Added preterm status and believed preterm status to maternal population observer (#7)

16.0

Wave I antenatal corticosteroids

Baseline

Default, note that we would like additional stratifications based on believed gestational age in the maternal population, births, and neonatal burden observers

16.1

Facility choice model bugfixes

Same as previous, but with: believed preterm status added to maternal population (ANC) observer; updated ANC, IFD, and LBWSG propensity values; updates to gestational age estimation error values to match documentation

Baseline and Ultrasound V&V scenario (scenario #20)

Default, but add believed preterm stratification to maternal population observer

16.3 (16.2 was skipped because we originally planned to separate the two sets of changes in this model, but did not run them separately)

Facility choice and neonatal mortality bugfixes

Same as previous, but with bugfixes.

Baseline and ultrasound V&V scenario (scenario #20)

Default, but with noted stratifications added

16.4

Fix ACS pipeline and add preterm stratification

Bugfix to resolve missing values for the neonatal_preterm_birth_with_rds.csmr pipeline for ACS-eligible simulants and to add back the preterm birth status stratification to the neonatal deaths observer

Baseline

Default, but with preterm birth status stratification of neonatal deaths observers

16.5

Add low hemoglobin RR for depression

Inclusion of low hemoglobin RR for depressive disorders. No need to actually re-run the model, we just need this RR value active in the interactive context for our custom PAF calculations.

Baseline

Default

17.0

Oral iron antenatal supplementation (IFA/MMS)

Oral iron antenatal supplementation (IFA/MMS), including effects on hemoglobin, birth weight, gestational age, and stillbirth. See the hemoglobin module for additional detail. Note this intervention has been implemented in previous models such as nutrition optimization.

Baseline and MMS scale-up scenarios

Default, note IFA/MMS coverage added as a stratifying variable to maternal population observer. Also add preterm birth stratification to the births observer.

18.0

Anemia screening implementation

Anemia screening implementation (including hemoglobin and ferritin screenings), see also the hemoglobin module

Baseline, MMS scale-up, and anemia screening scale-up scenarios

Default, note hemoglobin and ferritin screening coverage and results added as stratifying variables to maternal population observer

18.1 (not run)

Oral iron antenatal supplementation (IFA/MMS) bugfixes (interactive sim only)

Update so that only those who attend ANC are eligible for IFA/MMS; Include corresponding update in the baseline IFA calibration laid out in this PR; Confirm that cat1/cat2 are defined consistently for IFA and MMS coverage and consider updating to covered/uncovered

No run necessary, all V&V done in the interactive simulation

N/A

18.2 (not run)

Oral iron antenatal supplementation (IFA/MMS) bugfixes continued (interactive sim only)

Updated artifact key for excess shift of IFA on birthweight; Update hemoglobin risk effects to use intervention-affected hemoglobin exposure rather than raw hemoglobin exposure; Update baseline calibration to use coverage among total pop rather than at ANC; Fix common random numbers between scenarios with regard to ANC attendance

No run necessary, all V&V done in the interactive simulation

N/A

18.3

Fix observer stratifications and multiple bugfixes

Updated observer requests to avoid >15 stratifications and multiple bugfixes laid out in the outstanding V&V issues table in this PR

Baseline, MMS scale-up, and anemia screening scale-up scenarios

Default (note that observer 7 has been broken up into 7a and 7b)

18.4

Updated scenarios for GF presentation

This run to be used for presentation to GF and for record of results pre-GBD 2023 update for comparison

Scenario numbers 1-9 (all scale-up scenarios for implemented interventions other than misoprostol and hemoglobin-related interventions)

Default

19.0 (not run)

GBD 2023 Update part 1 (artifact only)

Data directly from GBD. See update in draw-level modeling strategy in this PR. Note that as described on the GBD 2023 LBWSG risk exposure document, we will continue to use GBD 2021 data for the LBWSG risk factor exposures and RR values. However, we will still need to re-run the LBWSG RR cap and PAF calculations as they depend on updated mortality risk data. This is an artifact only; the model will not run with this artifact, because it is missing required keys.

All

Default

19.0.1 (not run)

GBD 2023 artifact tweaks and bugfixes

Sex ratio at birth had been research-team-owned in the past, but this was a simple calculation from a GBD covariate and has been transferred to the engineering side. See this PR for the documentation update. Effect sizes of oral iron supplementation on hemoglobin were erroneously marked as research-team-owned and slated for 19.1; those should be added back unchanged from the 18.X artifacts. The MMS relative risk on stillbirth was incorrect, in both the code and the docs; see this PR for the corrected value. There was some ambiguity about where truncated normal distributions were truncated. This has been clarified in this docs PR. Note this is still just an artifact, and not a model run.

All

Default

19.1

GBD 2023 Update part 2

Data derived from GBD through more complex, research-owned processes.

All

Default

19.1.1

Fix BEMONC/CEMONC data issue

Rerun of GBD 2023 Update part 2 with artifacts that resolved data issue in keys dependent on the BEMONC/CEMONC fraction (that were accidentally run on data for the next major model)

Baseline

Default

19.1.2

Recalculate LBWSG PAFs with capped RRs

Rerun of previous with LBWSG PAFs recalculated using capped RRs

Baseline

Default

20.0

In-hospital (CEmONC) delivery estimates from HS team

In-hospital (CEmONC) delivery estimates from HS team. See PR with diff here

Baseline

Default

20.0.1

Bugfixes from “In-hospital (CEmONC) delivery estimates from HS team”

Non-zero neonatal deaths and updated intrapartum azithromycin intervention PAF values

Baseline

Default

20.0.2

Fix delivery facility model issues

Baseline

Default

20.1

Sensitivity analysis baseline run without oral iron

Sensitivity analysis run comparator: same as previous, but without oral iron effects (to sidestep known issues that will be resolved in “remaining pregnancy refactor”), and with more scenarios

Baseline; AI-assisted ultrasound scale-up; CPAP and ACS scale-up; CPAP, ACS, and AI-ultrasound scale-up

Default

20.1.1

Sensitivity analysis with extreme US error values

To get an upper bound on the potential impact of AI ultrasound, same as the previous, but set the standard deviation of gestational age error to 70 days for “no ultrasound”, 30 days for “standard ultrasound”, and 2 days for “AI ultrasound”.

Baseline; AI-assisted ultrasound scale-up; CPAP and ACS scale-up; CPAP, ACS, and AI-ultrasound scale-up

Default

20.2

Sensitivity analysis with lower bound US error values

To get a lower bound on the potential impact of AI ultrasound for 12/15 Gates meeting, same as the previous, but set the standard deviation of gestational age error to 5 days for “no ultrasound”, 3.5 days for “standard ultrasound”, and 2 days for “AI ultrasound”.

Baseline; AI-assisted ultrasound scale-up; CPAP and ACS scale-up; CPAP, ACS, and AI-ultrasound scale-up

Default

20.3

Sensitivity analysis with upper bound US error values

To get an upper bound on the potential impact of AI ultrasound for 12/15 Gates meeting based on additional data seeking, same as the previous, but set the standard deviation of gestational age error to 14 days for “no ultrasound”, 10 days for “standard ultrasound”, and 2 days for “AI ultrasound”.

Baseline; AI-assisted ultrasound scale-up; CPAP and ACS scale-up; CPAP, ACS, and AI-ultrasound scale-up

Default

21.0

Hemoglobin refactor

Bringing model up to date with the updated hemoglobin module docs and fixing bugs in “Fix observer stratifications and multiple bugfixes” related to multiple instances of hemoglobin variables that were being inconsistently referenced by different simulation components (See outstanding model verification and validation issues table for full list)

Baseline, MMS scaleup, and anemia screening scaleup scenarios

Do not define a measure of “true first trimester hemoglobin exposure” in this version of the model. Otherwise, default.

21.0.1

Hemoglobin refactor run correction

Same as 21.0 but with specific artifact/code discrepancies described in V&V table addressed

Baseline, MMS scaleup, and anemia screening scaleup scenarios

Do not define a measure of “true first trimester hemoglobin exposure” in this version of the model. Otherwise, default.

21.1

Add dichotomous true hemoglobin output

Add in dichotomous measure of “true first trimester hemoglobin exposure” for V&V of the hemoglobin screening sensitivity and specificity

Baseline, MMS scaleup, and anemia screening scaleup scenarios

Include dichotomous output of true first trimester hemoglobin exposure as a stratification in the anc_hemoglobin observer

21.1.1

Hemoglobin refactor: more bugfixes

Same as previous but with specific bugs described in V&V table addressed

Baseline, MMS scaleup, and anemia screening scaleup scenarios

Default

22.0.0

Add residual and other maternal disorders

Inclusion of the residual maternal disorders and abortion/miscarriage/ectopic pregnancy maternal disorders cause models

Baseline

Default

22.0.1

Residual maternal disorders observer

Bug fix to include residual maternal disorders in observation

Baseline

Default

23.0

Remaining pregnancy model refactor

Specifically with regard to LBWSG exposure. Note that intervention effects on stillbirth are not expected to be resolved in this run. Additionally, include bugfix for inverted baseline anemia screening coverage

All

Default

24.0

MMS stillbirth effects and GA floors

  • Update simulation to appropriately apply effects of MMS on stillbirth by determining “broad pregnancy outcome” (abortion/ectopic/miscarriage versus live/still birth) at initialization (prior to administration of MMS) and then later, after MMS administration, determine live versus stillbirth outcomes

  • Add misoprostol and azithromycin scenarios to runs

  • Implement gestational age at birth exposure minimum values for live and stillbirth outcomes. See the changes made to the pregnancy and LBWSG exposure model documents in this pull request Note that this update will require re-running the LBWSG PAF calculation. Run without oral iron effects (to sidestep known issues and not block this model on “remaining pregnancy refactor”).

All, including newly re-added scenarios #12 Azithromycin V&V and #13 Misoprostol V&V (note that scenarios #12 and #13 have been run before, but have been dropped from the branches file)

Default

22.0.2

Residual maternal disorders bugfix

Fix issue of use of cause ID 1160 rather than cause ID 379 for indirect maternal deaths

Baseline

Default

24.1

MMS stillbirth effects and GA floors with neonatal deaths bugfix

Fix bug causing zero neonatal deaths

All

Default

24.2

MMS stillbirth effects and GA floors with neonatal deaths bugfix and re-generated RR caps

Same as 24.1 but with re-generated LBWSG RR caps

All

Default

24.3

GA floor fixes

Ensure GA floor varies by pregnancy outcome in alignment with docs

All

Default

25.0

Update SBR to >=24 weeks

Update to >=24 week stillbirth estimates for SBR. See pull request. Run without oral iron effects (to sidestep known issues and not block this model on “remaining pregnancy refactor”). Note that this should build on top of 20.0.x, not 20.1.x (which was only for sensitivity analysis).

Baseline

Default

25.0.1

Update SBR to >=24 weeks run bugfixes

Fix bug in 25.0 causing zero neonatal deaths, ensure run is complete (no failed jobs)

All

Default

None

26.0

IV iron coverage and effect on hemoglobin

IV iron intervention coverage and effect on hemoglobin. See the hemoglobin module document for more detail.

Baseline and IV iron scale-up scenarios

Default, note IV iron coverage as a new stratifying variable to the maternal population observer

24.3

GA floor fixes

Ensure GA floor varies by pregnancy outcome in alignment with docs

All

Default

24.4

GA floor fixes 2

Fix issue with stillbirth GA floor

All

Default

None

27.0

IV iron effects on BW, GA, and stillbirth

As defined on the IV iron intervention document

Baseline and IV iron scale-up scenarios

Default

27.1

IV iron neonatal effects bugfixes

  • Update so that IV iron effects are based on first trimester ANC hemoglobin exposure rather than later pregnancy intervention hemoglobin exposure

  • Update so that LBWSG propensities do not reset between scenarios for those whose pregnancy outcome changes between scenarios

  • Update so that hemoglobin exposure in the state table is non-null prior to the later pregnancy intervention timestep

Baseline and IV iron scale-up scenarios

Default

28.0

Pakistan fistula update

Update YLDs due to obstructed labor according to the custom data values specified in this pull request

Baseline

Default

28.1

Merge 28.0 and 27.1

Baseline

Default

29.0

Anemia YLDs and postpartum hemoglobin

Baseline, MMS scale-up, and IV iron scale-up scenarios

Default, note new anemia YLD observer

29.1

Anemia YLDs sensitivity analysis

As a sensitivity analysis, disable the effect of oral iron on hemoglobin

Note: this model is for sensitivity analysis only and future models should not be based on it.

Baseline, MMS scale-up, and IV iron scale-up scenarios

Default

29.2

Anemia YLDs sensitivity analysis bugfix

Fix issue in 29.1 where baseline IFA deletion was still applied to hemoglobin

Baseline, MMS scale-up, and IV iron scale-up scenarios

Default

29.0.1

Anemia YLDs bugfixes

Fix issue in 29.0 where anemia YLDs duration for abortion/miscarriage/ectopic pregnancies were longer than the pregnancy; consolidate pregnancy duration and gestational age pipelines

Baseline, MMS scale-up, and IV iron scale-up scenarios

Default

29.0.2

Anemia YLDs bugfixes 2

Fix issue in 29.0.1 where oral iron effects were not being applied to the anemia YLDs calculation

Baseline, MMS scale-up, and IV iron scale-up scenarios

Default

29.2.1

Merge 29.2 and 29.0.2

Merge anemia YLDs bugfixes into sensitivity analysis, and fix a small bug that was causing job failures in the sensitivity analysis run

Baseline, MMS scale-up, and IV iron scale-up scenarios

Default

30.0

Oral iron GA shift refactor

Uses different IFA shifts for ANC and non-ANC attendees and recalibrates MMS shifts as described in this PR

Baseline and MMS scale-up scenarios

Default

29.0.3

Anemia YLDs with pipeline consolidation (PC)

Consolidate pipelines for pregnancy duration and gestational age, and ensure that the pregnancy duration/gestational age used in the anemia YLDs calculation is consistent with the pregnancy duration/gestational age used in the rest of the model

Baseline

Default

29.0.3s

Anemia YLDs with pipeline consolidation (PC) sensitivity analysis

Same as 29.0.3, but with oral iron effects on hemoglobin disabled as a sensitivity analysis

Baseline

Default

29.0.4

Anemia YLDs with stillbirth fix

Fix issue with stillbirths having negative durations between later ANC and end of pregnancy

Baseline

Default

29.0.4s

Anemia YLDs with stillbirth fix sensitivity analysis

Same as 29.0.4, but with oral iron effects on hemoglobin disabled as a sensitivity analysis

Baseline

Default

29.0.5

Anemia YLDs with person-time observer fix

Fix issue with anemia person-time observer where it did not sum across simulants in the postpartum timestep

Baseline

Default

29.0.5s

Anemia YLDs with person-time observer fix sensitivity analysis

Same as 29.0.5, but with oral iron effects on hemoglobin disabled as a sensitivity analysis

Baseline

Default

31.0

Update hemoglobin exposure to release ID 33

Merges 29.0.5 and 30.0, and updates hemoglobin exposure to release ID 33

Baseline

Default

31.0s

Update hemoglobin exposure to release ID 33 sensitivity analysis

Same as 31.0, but with oral iron effects on hemoglobin disabled as a sensitivity analysis

Baseline

Default

Larger run for neonatal mortality V&V

Includes “neonatal all-cause mortality risk”, “neonatal cause-specific mortality risks”, and “impossible neonatal CSMRisk” observers.

Baseline

  • For this run only, 10,000,000 population size per draw

  • Default, note addition of “neonatal all-cause mortality risk”, “neonatal cause-specific mortality risks”, and “impossible neonatal CSMRisk” observers.

Oral iron GA shift optimization and facility choice model interaction resolution?

Update hemoglobin effects

As defined on the hemoglobin risk effects document (Custom PAFs and neonatal sepsis effects have yet to be calculated for GBD 2023): Updated custom PAF values for maternal hemorrhage and maternal sepsis outcomes (paired with existing implementation of GBD RRs); New risk effect (using GBD RRs and custom PAFs) for depressive disorders; New risk effect (using custom RRs and PAFs) for neonatal sepsis

Baseline and IV iron scale-up scenarios

Default

RT-owned data generation that is blocked by Separate LBWSG affected causes run

Effects of maternal disorders on postpartum hemoglobin

Effects of maternal hemorrhage (and possibly maternal sepsis) on postpartum hemoglobin. Model run is blocked by

Baseline, MMS scale-up, and IV iron scale-up scenarios

Default

Research tickets to update maternal hemorrhage risk effect docs to GBD 2023 and consider adding risk effect for maternal sepsis

Separate LBWSG affected causes

Update neonatal mortality model to treat LBWSG-affected and -unaffected causes differently in accordance with this pull request

All

Default

Larger run for neonatal mortality V&V run

Trimester-specific ultrasound

Update ultrasound model to include gestational age estimation error specific to timing of ultrasound in addition to ultrasound type. See the ultrasound module document for details

All

Default, note that observed value for ultrasound is now “ultrasound summary” rather than “ultrasound type” with this update

Updated data values for trimester-specific GA error values, updated facility choice model and values that reflect the updated GA error values, Remaining pregnancy model refactor run

Note

Some of the notebook URLs for the older runs might be out-of-date. If you click one of these links and it gives you a 404 error, add to your URL /old_vnv_notebooks/ after verification_and_validation, and that should take you to the right place!

V&V tracking

Model number

Short name

V&V plan

V&V summary

Link to notebook

1

Wave I Pregnancy V&V

  • Confirm ANC visit rate matches expectations

  • Confirm ultrasound rates matches inputs for all scenarios

  • Confirm gestational age estimate and real gestational age have the correct margin of error based on ultrasound type

  • Confirm birth rates (live, still, partial) match GBD

  • Confirm pregnancy population is within expected WRA age group (15-49 years)

All checks passed except last one; RT is updating our observer output requests to add an observer for pregnant person age.

Notebook linked here

2

Wave I Maternal disorders V&V

  • For each modeled maternal disorder (sepsis, hemorrhage, and OL/uterine rupture), we need to:
    • Validate the cause-specific incidence risk and case fatality rate in each age group against the corresponding quantities calculated from GBD data

    • Validate the number of cause-specific deaths per population against the CSMR from GBD

    • Validate the total YLDs and YLLs per case

  • Confirm the overall mortality rate of all maternal disorders lines up with GBD expectations.

All checks passed except error found in GBD 2021 for Pakistan fistula modeling - need to update the artifact for Pakistan OL prevalence values from GBD 2021 to GBD 2023. Did not explicitly check YLLs yet.

Notebook linked here

3

Wave I Neonatal disorders V&V

For each modeled neonatal disorder (sepsis, hemorrhage, and OL/uterine rupture), we need to:
  • Validate the cause-specific incidence risk and case fatality rate in

    each age group against the corresponding quantities calculated from GBD data

  • Validate the number of cause-specific deaths per population against

    the CSMR from GBD

Found an error in LBWSG distribution in artifact, which might be the cause of some of the other checks that weren’t passing, including the ACMR for the late neonatal group and the CSMR for preterm

Notebook linked here

3.1

Wave I Neonatal disorders V&V with correct LBWSG distribution

Validate LBWSG exposure distribution

LBWSG distributions in artifact, GBD, and simulation are now matching, but preterm deaths still look too low in the simulation

Notebook linked here

3.2

Wave I Neonatal disorders V&V with LBWSG component removed

Validate all-cause mortality for early and late neonatal age groups with LBWSG component removed

Early neonatal mortality is still being overestimated in the simulation

Notebook linked here

3.3

Wave I Neonatal disorders V&V with early NN observer bugfix

  • Validate all-cause mortality for early neonatal age group with observer bugfix

  • Validate that individual RRs vary with LBWSG exposure

  • Validate that individual RRs affect mortality rates appropriately

  • Validate that no non-preterm babies are dying of preterm

Early neonatal mortality is validating now! Note: Ali noticed in the LBWSG interactive sim that the state table and pipeline values for LBWSG exposure don’t match, but engineers confirmed this is okay, the pipeline values refresh after being recorded in the state table (and then are not used again).

4.1

Wave I CPAP

Validate RR of CPAP on RDS preterm (and confirm other causes are unchanged)

Cannot validate, need observer with counts per facility type

4.2

Wave I CPAP with observer for counts per facility type

Validate RR of CPAP on RDS preterm (and confirm other causes are unchanged)

Cannot validate, need to add delivery facility column in births observer and stratification for CPAP availability

4.3

Wave I CPAP with addition of a delivery facility column

Validate RR of CPAP on RDS preterm (and confirm other causes are unchanged)

Not validating, need to update how we determine which delivery facility type a simulant will go to

4.4

Wave I CPAP with updated facility determination

Validate RR of CPAP on RDS preterm (and confirm other causes are unchanged)

Not validating, we are seeing negative mortality rates for Other causes

4.5

Wave I CPAP with mortality bugfix

Validate RR of CPAP on RDS preterm (and confirm other causes are unchanged)

CSMRs and ACMR are all validating now, with the bugfix to adjust all negative values to 0 and rescale the rest of the RRs to add up to 1

4.7

Correct pregnancy duration for abortion/miscarriage/ectopic pregnancies

Validate abortion/miscarriage/ectopic pregnancy duration is between 6 and 24 weeks and uniformly distributed.

Validated for all 3 locations

Notebook linked here

5.0

Wave I neonatal antibiotics with scale-up scenarios

Validate RR of antibiotics on sepsis (and confirm other causes are unchanged)

Everything is validating - RR on sepsis aligns with expected value; other causes, non-RDS preterm, and encephalopathy all have the expected RRs of 1 from antibiotics. There’s an RR of 0.78 for antibiotics on preterm with RDS, but we confirmed that when we group this by facility type, there is the expected RR of 1. This is because the probability of a simulant receiving CPAP and the probability of receiving antibiotics are not independent (both related to facility choice).

Notebook linked here

5.1

Wave I neonatal antibiotics refactor

Validate maternal and neonatal disorders and intervention effect sizes after refactor

Everything is validating! We noticed the maternal disorders incidence parquet files were mislabeled, the fix for that has already been implemented.

6.0

Wave I neonatal probiotics with scale-up scenarios

Validate coverage, RR of probiotics on sepsis (and confirm other causes are unchanged)

Neonatal ACMR looks off, residuals have gotten increasingly worse with additional interventions

ACMR notebook linked here Notebook linked here

6.0.1

Wave I neonatal disorders ACMR 200k

Validate neonatal disorders ACMR with 200k population without interventions

Used the attached notebook and spreadsheet to figure out which runs were validating with ACMR and which were not

6.0.2

Wave I neonatal disorders ACMR 2M

Validate neonatal disorders ACMR in baseline scenario with 2 million population

Used the attached notebook and spreadsheet to figure out which runs were validating with ACMR and which were not

6.0.3

Wave I neonatal disorders ACMR with rate conversion

Validate neonatal disorders ACMR when reverting the rate to probability conversion for mortality rates when choosing when neonates die

Used the attached notebook and spreadsheet to figure out which runs were validating with ACMR and which were not

6.0.4

Wave I neonatal disorders ACMR with raw CSMR

Validate neonatal disorders ACMR when using raw CSMRs for the non-preterm neonatal causes, removed LBWSG RRs on those neonatal causes

Used the attached notebook and spreadsheet to figure out which runs were validating with ACMR and which were not

6.1

LBWSG PAF changes for Ethiopia

Check ENN mortality ratio compared to GBD

Neonatal mortality ratios are now slightly underestimated (rather than the previous overestimation). Note that calculation of the mortality ratio of the LNN age group has been updated in this notebook to be [deaths in LNN age group] / [population at the start of the LNN age group], rather than a denominator of live births so that LNN mortality is not dependent on ENN mortality.

6.2

Exponential rate-to-probability conversion

Check ENN mortality ratio compared to GBD

Neonatal mortality ratios are now dramatically overestimated. Note that while the birth observer has changed between models 6.1 and 6.2, it has been verified that birth counts do not vary between these runs and that greater death count values are driving the difference between neonatal mortality ratios in 6.1 and 6.2

6.2.1

Fix rate-to-probability equation

Check ENN mortality ratio compared to GBD, check that birth observer is recording abortion/miscarriage/ectopic pregnancies

  • neonatal mortality ratios are within the expected range (underestimated to a degree greater than 6.1)

  • birth observer is functioning as expected

6.3

ENN LBWSG PAF using ENN exposure

Check ENN mortality ratio compared to GBD and models 6.1-6.4

Mortality is slightly overestimated. It appears that overestimation in 6.3 is slightly larger in magnitude than the underestimation of 6.1.

Notebook comparing model 6.3 to 6.1-6.4

6.4

Revert to linear rate-to-probability

Check ENN mortality ratio compared to GBD and models 6.1-6.4

Mortality is overestimated to a degree greater than 6.3

Notebook comparing model 6.4 to 6.1-6.4

6.5

Add maternal population observer

  • Check that the neonatal mortality ratio is as expected in line with model 6.1

  • Check that the new observer #7 is as expected

  • Check that the pregnant population age structure looks as expected in new observer

  • Neonatal mortality ratio in expected range for all cause mortality (slightly underestimated, same as model 6.1)

  • Neonatal mortality ratio in expected range for cause-spcific mortality other than preterm birth (slightly underestimated, same as all-cause mortality)

  • Neonatal mortality ratio due to preterm birth is slightly overestimated

  • Maternal population observer looks good!

  • Age structure looks as expected

Model 6.5 VV notebook available here

7.0

Wave I neonatal probiotics with effective coverage

  • Check that probiotics are only received by preterm neonates

  • Check that coverage at each facility type is as expected

  • Probiotics observer not stratified by preterm birth, so we will need to rerun or do coverage V&V in the interactive sim

  • Neonatal intervention observers appear to be counting stillbirths, but should only be counting live births

  • Neonatal mortality looks as expected (same as model 6.5)

7.0.1

Add preterm stratification and fix observers

  • Check that probiotics are only received by preterm neonates

  • Check that coverage at each facility type is as expected

  • Check that intervention observers are no longer counting stillbirths

  • Check probiotics effect size is as expected among preterm infants

All specified V&V criteria looks great! Did notice that CPAP relative risk in artifact is a point value despite having uncertainty specified in documentation.

Notebook for model 7.0.1 neonatal V&V found here

7.0.2

Update preterm birth parameter

Check that preterm birth mortality is as expected: we should change from a slight overestimation to a slight underestimation. A slight underestimation is expected due to known mortality probabilities greater than 1, which will be addressed in future model runs.

The overestimation of preterm birth mortality is of lower magnitude than in 7.0.1, indicating that the update of the preterm prevalence term improved the model. However, preterm birth mortality remains slightly overestimated on average rather than the expected slight underestimation.

Model 7.0.2 neonatal V&V notebook

7.1

Update neonatal mortality to risks

  • Neonatal mortality (all cause and cause-specific) is expected to remain slightly underestimated in the baseline scenario (by the same magnitude of model run 6.1). This is expected as we have not yet implemented a strategy to account for known probabilities greater than 1.

  • Recheck LBWSG Effects

  • Check that intervention effect sizes are maintained

  • Neonatal mortality is in expected range

  • LBWSG risk factor is affecting mortality pipeline values as expected (checked in the interactive sim)

7.1.1

Add CPAP parameter uncertainty

  • Check that artifact values for the CPAP relative risk have been updated

  • Check that CPAP intervention effect size is as expected

  • Check that preterm birth mortality is as expected

All looks good except the artifact values for the CPAP relative risk are not quite as expected due to issue raised in this comment

Model 7.1.1 notebook available here

8.0

Wave I azithromycin

  • Check baseline and intervention coverage of azithromycin intervention

  • Check that maternal disorders burden (particularly sepsis) still verifies at the population level in the baseline scenario

  • Check that the effect size of the azithromycin intervention verifies

  • Check that CPAP intervention effect size has been appropriately updated

  • Azithromycin intervention coverage looks good

  • Maternal sepsis incidence and mortality in the baseline scenario still validates

  • Can’t fully confirm azithromycin coverage by delivery facility and pregnancy outcome due to insufficient stratifications

  • Azithromycin effect on maternal sepsis looks good

  • It appears that azithromycin is also affecting maternal obstructed labor, which should not be the case

  • CPAP intervention effect size looks good

8.1

Cap LBWSG RRs

  • Early neonatal mortality is expected to validate to GBD targets (no longer be underestimated!). Note that LNN mortality may not exactly validate because we have not yet updated the LNN LBWSG PAF calculation to use exposure specific to the population at 7 days of life.

  • Check that LBWSG effects are updated and functioning as expected

  • Check that intervention effect sizes are maintained too

  • All cause mortality in the ENN age group is looking good! Great!

  • All cause mortality in the LBB age group is a little overestimated, but this is expected to be off because we have not updated the PAFs.

  • Cause-specific mortality still looks a little less than ideal

8.2

Update neonatal probiotics effect size

  • Check that neonatal mortality remains as expected

  • Check that probiotics intervention effect is as expected

All looks good!

Model 8.2 V&V notebook

8.3

Update antibiotics modeling strategy

  • Check that baseline neonatal mortality remains as expected

  • Check antibiotics coverage by scenario is as expected (and no longer varies by delivery facility)

  • Check that NN sepsis mortality between the baseline scenario and scenario #5 (full antibiotics scale-up) reflects the RR for the neonatal outpatient antibiotics intervention for Pakistan and Nigeria. For Ethiopia (which has baseline coverage), check that the intervention effect is reflected in the covered and uncovered populations

All looks good, except antibiotics coverage is not being scaled up among those who deliver at home as it should be

Model 8.3 V&V notebook

9.0

Wave I misoprostol

  • Check maternal hemorrhage still verifies in baseline scenario

  • Check that misoprostol coverage is as expected among eligible population in baseline and intervention scenarios

  • Check that only eligible population (attends ANC and delivers at home) receives misoprostol

  • Check effect size of misoprostol on maternal hemorrhage incidence

  • Intrapartum intervention demonstrated expected behavior in the interactive sim, but unable to verify in simulation outputs

  • Maternal disorders burden still verifies in baseline scenario

  • Misoprostol coverage by scenario looks good

  • Neonatal all cause mortality reverted to underestimate in this model run after being resolved in last model run of 8.3

9.1

Antibiotics bugfix for home deliveries

  • Confirm neonatal antibiotics intervention coverage is appropriately scaled up in home births

  • Looks good in the “antibiotics” scenario

  • No need for the “antibiotics_home” scenario, which can be deleted/removed

Model 9.1 neonatal V&V notebook

9.2

Larger population for obstructed labor V&V

  • Confirm that there is no effect of azithromycin on maternal obstructed labor

  • Confirm maintained effect of azithromycin on maternal sepsis

  • Confirm maternal disorders still validate in baseline scenario

Same conclusions as 9.0

Model 9.2 V&V notebook

9.3

Additional stratifications for intrapartum V&V

Confirm intrapartum interventions are meeting V&V criteria

Intrapartum intervention coverage and effects are looking just as expected :)

Model 9.3 V&V notebook

10.0

Add postpartum depression

  • Check PPD incidence ratio in baseline scenario matches expectation

  • Confirm PPD is non-fatal

  • Confirm PPD YLD rate matches expectation

All looks great!

Model 10.0 vv notebook

10.1

Remove LBWSG effect on neonatal encephalopathy

Check if cause-specific neonatal mortality validates

  • NN enceph. mortality severely underestimated

  • NN other causes and preterm birth tends to be overestimated

  • NN sepsis mortality tends to be underestimated

Model 10.1 vv notebook

10.2

Same as “Add postpartum depression” with scenario #13

Confirm baseline mortality is as expected, scenario-specific intervention coverage is as expected

Looks as expected (including persistent NN mortality underestimation that arose in model 9.0)

Model 10.2 vv notebook

11.0

Add hemoglobin risk exposure model

  • Use the interactive sim to verify the hemoglobin distribution in pregnancy matches expectation

  • Confirm maternal disorders burden still matches expectation

All looks good! However, we are not using the draw numbers pre-specified in this PR. The draws that have been run include duplicate hemoglobin exposure values.

11.1

VPH LBWSG refactor bugfix

  • Check neonatal all cause mortality (among early neonatal age group) validates

Looks good!

Model 11.1 neonatal checks notebook

11.2

Update draws for GBD 2021

Check that draw numbers have been updated

Looks good!

Model 11.2 notebook

12.0

Cap LBWSG RRs and new LNN PAF

  • Confirm neonatal all-cause mortality risks match expectation

  • Confirm LBWSG risk effects are working as expected

  • Neonatal all cause mortality risks are within “10% target range,” but late neonatal all cause mortality varies more than early neonatal

  • LBWSG Risk effects and PAF values yet to be directly verified

12.1

Preterm prevalence calculation bugfix

  • Confirm neonatal cause-specific mortality risks match expectation for each preterm subcause

  • Confirm LBWSG risk effects are working as expected

  • Check whether neonatal cause-specific mortality risks match expectation for non-preterm causes

Neonatal cause-specific mortality risks match expectation for both preterm and non-preterm causes in the early neonatal period. We appear to be systematically underestimating preterm CSMRisks in the late neonatal period.

Model 12.1 neonatal checks notebook

12.1.1

Update LNN LBWSG PAF calculation

  • Confirm neonatal all-cause mortality risks match expectation

  • Confirm that neonatal cause-specific mortality matches expectation

  • Confirm LBWSG risk effects are working as expected

  • Confirm that LBWSG PAF values match expectation through independent replication

  • Reasonably confident that the LNN PAF values in the artifact are correct based on this artifact verification notebook

  • LBWSG risk effects are working as expected based on this interactive simulation notebook

  • All cause mortality risk is within 10% of target, but particularly for late neonatal females, there appears to be some slight miscalibration (although the direction varies by location)

  • Preterm birth mortality risk is slightly underestimated in late neonatal age group. Other cause specific mortality risks look generally acceptable, with other causes mortalty risks trending towards overestimation

13.0

Hemoglobin risk effects on maternal disorders

  • Confirm baseline maternal disorders burden still validates

  • Confirm hemoglobin exposure appropriately modifies maternal disorders incidence ratios (using the interactive sim), but not case fatality rates

  • Maternal hemorrhage and sepsis incidence rates are not quite calibrated to targets, expected to be due to using global rather than location-specific PAF values

  • Hemoglobin RRs are being applied as expected to hemorrhage and sepsis incidence risks

  • RR values for hemoglobin exposures <40 g/L are not as expected: they taper down rather than being equal to the RR value for a hemoglobin level of 40

  • It appears that RR=1 for all exposure values above the TMREL value of 120 rather than following the risk curve that allows for risks below 1

13.1

Update hemoglobin PAF values and RR handling

  • Confirm baseline maternal disorders validates

  • Confirm hemoglobin exposure appropriately modifies maternal disorders incidence ratios (using the interactive sim), but not case fatality rates

  • Confirm RR values for hemoglobin exposures <40 are equal to the RR value for a hemoglobin exposure of 40

  • Confirm that artifact RR values match expectation

  • Confirm that RR values for hemoglobin exposures above the TMREL vary according to the input data

  • Slight overestimation of maternal sepsis incidence, particularly in Nigeria. Mean values are generally within 10% of target otherwise. Significant draw-level variation, with underestimation of lower draws and overestimation of higher draws.

  • Hemoglobin exposure appropriately modifies maternal disorder incidence but not mortality

  • RR values for hemoglobin exposures <40 equal that of hemoglobin exposure equal to 40

  • Artifact RR values match expectation

  • RR values for hemoglobin exposures >TMREL vary according to input data

13.2

Fix LBWSG PAF calculation bugs

  • Check late neonatal all-cause mortality risk and cause-specific mortality risks; expected change is small but should be in the direction of better verification to GBD

  • As expected, no change to early neonatal mortality risks

  • Late neonatal all-cause mortality risks closer than in model 12.1.1 (already within 10%, now well within 5% for all locations and sexes)

  • Late neonatal cause-specific mortality risks pretty similar to model 12.1.1, as expected (maybe a bit closer to GBD targets, but hard to tell)

Model 13.2 neonatal checks

13.3

Update LNN preterm prevalence calculation

  • Check that neonatal all-cause mortality risks match expectation

  • Check that neonatal cause-specific mortality risks match expectation

  • All-cause mortality risks unchanged from 13.2, as expected

  • Substantial improvement (reduction) in late neonatal overestimation of other-causes mortality risk and underestimation of preterm mortality risk in all locations; however, there still appears to be systematic bias in this direction

  • Noticed bug in PAF sim population (see Model 16.3 for fix)

  • Identified miscalibration in late neonatal CPAP PAF on preterm with RDS (see known issues)

Model 13.3 neonatal checks Model 13.3 interactive sim neonatal mortality checks

14.0

Wave II antenatal care attendance

  • Confirm ANC attendance exposure varies as expected by broad pregnancy outcome

  • Confirm ANC attendance exposure matches expectation

  • Confirm AI ultrasound exposure categories is consistent with ANC attendance categories (ex: no ultrasound coverage if no ANC coverage)

All V&V criteria met!

Model 14.0 maternal checks notebook

15.0

Delivery facility choice model

Note 1

For these checks, “verify” means we are comparing the simulation output to a value that was input directly (e.g., the LBWSG distribution), whereas “validate” means we are expecting the sim to indirectly reproduce a value that was not input directly (e.g., matching GBD’s IFD proportion by using the specified causal probabilities for facility choice)

Note 2

The calculation of several of the validation targets requires running Nathaniel’s facility choice nanosim or its data-processing code. The necessary validation targets are computed in the facility choice validation targets notebook and are saved in the facility choice validation targets .csv file

Checks using observer outputs:

  • Validate rates of preterm birth given in-facility status against optimization targets (calculated in facility choice validation targets notebook)

  • Validate rates of in-facility delivery given ANC status against optimization targets (calculated in facility choice validation targets notebook)

  • Validate rates of in-facility delivery against GBD covariate 51

  • Verify preterm birth rates (overall, not sex-specific) match GBD preterm rates calculated from LBWSG data

  • Verify proportions of male and female births match GBD (using either the “live births by sex” covariate 1106, or get_population with the “Birth” age group 164)

  • Verify rates of ANC1 match GBD covariate 7

  • Verify rates of BEmONC vs. CEmONC match input data on facility choice model page

  • Verify rates of standard ultrasound given ANC1 status match baseline coverage from AI Ultrasound module

  • Validate observed probabilities of IFD given believed preterm status against observed probabilities in facility choice nanosim

  • Validate confusion matrix of preterm status vs. believed preterm status against observed probabilities in facility choice nanosim

  • Validate P( believed preterm | preterm status, ultrasound type ) against observed probabilities in facility choice nanosim

Note 3

The following checks in the interactive sim are probably only necessary if some of the above checks are failing, although it might be a good idea to do at least the first two (LBWSG distribution and GA error distribution) since these components are getting modified for this model run

Checks using interactive sim:

Measures meeting V&V criteria:

  • BEmONC fraction of in-facility deliveries

  • Sex ratio at birth

  • Preterm prevalence

V&V issues:

  • IFD slightly overestimated

  • Not meeting ANC attendance targets (100% anc_coverage == ‘none’)

  • Delivery facility by ANC attendance (rates are way high among those who do not attend ANC, but this could be a ripple effect of the ANC bug?)

Not able to be checked:

  • Ultrasound coverage (ultrasound coverage is dependent on ANC attendance, which is not functioning in this model)

  • Preterm birth rates by delivery setting (need additional stratifications)

  • IFD | believed preterm status (need additional stratifications)

  • Preterm status vs. believed preterm status (need additional stratifications)

  • Believed preterm | preterm status and ultrasound type (need additional statifications and non-zero ANC/US coverage)

See model 15.0 V&V notebooks here

15.1

Fix ANC attendance bug and add stratifications

Same as 15.0

Measures meeting V&V criteria:

  • BEmONC fraction of in-facility deliveries

  • Sex ratio at birth

  • Preterm prevalence

  • ANC attendance

  • Ultrasound coverage at ANC

Known issues:

  • Identical values for ANC, IFD, and LBWSG propensity values (correlation values of 1.0)

  • Gestational age estimation error values differ between the documentation and simulation

  • No “believed preterm” stratification in maternal population (ANC) observer

V&V targets not met: (thought to be related to “known issues”)

  • IFD slightly overestimated

  • Delivery facility by preterm status

  • Delivery facility by believed preterm status

  • Delivery facility by ANC attendance

  • Confusion matrix of preterm vs. believed preterm status

  • Rates of believed preterm status by preterm status and ultrasound coverage

See model 15.1 V&V notebooks here

16.0

Wave I antenatal corticosteroids

  • Use the interactive sim to confirm RDS and all-cause mortality rates between 33 weeks with ACS coverage and 34 weeks (no ACS coverage due to ineligibility).

  • Confirm neonatal mortality rate of preterm birth with RDS in baseline scenario still validates.

  • Confirm ratio of preterm with RDS mortality among the eligible population of those without ACS divided by those with ACS equals the relative risk parameter specified in the ACS intervention page.

  • Confirm that baseline coverage of ACS is equal to that of CPAP as specified in the CPAP intervention page.

  • Confirm that the same propensity value is used for ACS and CPAP.

  • Use the interactive sim to confirm there is no coverage of ACS outside of the eligible gestational age range.

  • In the interactive sim, confirmed that ACS coverage was in the expected believed gestational age range, was at the expected rate conditional on delivery facility, and had the expected correlation with CPAP coverage.

  • Interactive sim shows suspicious behavior of the CPAP and ACS intervention effects and unable to verify behavior in simulation results without additional stratifications

  • Neonatal mortality due to preterm birth with RDS underestimated in simulation results

Notebooks for model 16.0 V&V here

16.1

Facility choice model bugfixes

  • Same as 15.0

  • Confirm expected correlation of IFD, ANC, and LBWSG propensities

  • Confirm expected gestational age estimation error of different ultrasound types (including AI-assisted US in scenario #20)

  • Confirm that there are slight increases in IFD rate between the baseline scenario and scenario #20 (with improved US coverage)

All V&V criteria met except for:

  • Correlation between delivery facility and antenatal care propensities are not as expected for Nigeria or Pakistan

  • Distribution of in-facility delivery stratified by ANC1 attendance not meeting target (except for Ethiopia)

(Note that scenario #20 was not included in this run, so related V&V will be performed in 16.3 instead)

Notebooks for model 16.1 V&V here

16.3

Facility choice and neonatal mortality bugfixes

For facility choice: Same as 16.1 and 16.0

For neonatal mortality:

  • Check that neonatal all-cause mortality risks match expectation, except for slight LNN miscalibration after preterm with RDS CSMRisk is applied

  • Check that neonatal cause-specific mortality risks match expectation, except for slight LNN miscalibration in preterm with RDS after CPAP PAF is applied

  • All delivery facility choice V&V targets met! Note unexpected validation of decrease of IFD rate in the ultrasound V&V scenario that is being discussed on the research team

  • ACS coverage by scenario, eligibility, and CPAP coverage looks good

  • Ultrasound coverage by scenario and ANC coverage looks good

  • Zero observered deaths among the ACS eligible and ACS/CPAP covered population – looks to be a result of missing values in the neonatal_preterm_birth_with_rds.csmr pipeline for simulants eligible for ACS

  • Effect of CPAP and ACS cannot be properly assessed without preterm birth stratification in the neonatal deaths observer

  • Neonatal mortality underestimated. More specific neonatal mortality V&V checks will be performed on model 16.4 when the missing pipeline values bug is resolved

16.4

Fix ACS pipeline and add preterm stratification

Same as 16.3

  • Bug that caused zero observed deaths among the ACS eligible and covered population has been resolved. Neonatal mortality is looking improved

  • Effect of CPAP and ACS believed to be functioning as expected. We will do a final confirmation once preterm stratification is added to the births observer, but based on the interactive sim there is no reason to believe there is a bug

  • ENN preterm birth with RDS CSMRisk overestimated by approximately 1.5% (only checked one draw in Ethiopia) due to LBWSG correlation with CPAP and ACS induced by facility choice model (was calibrated in 13.3)

  • LNN ACMRisk underestimated by approximately 0.75% (only checked one draw in Ethiopia) due to the previous bullet causing differential mortality miscalibration by LBWSG, with corresponding impacts on each CSMRisk, including preterm birth with RDS which was already underestimated by approximately 2% due to the lack of age-specific delivery facility exposure in PAF calculation

17.0

Oral iron antenatal supplementation (IFA/MMS)

  • Confirm scenario-specific coverage (verification with sim outputs)

  • Confirm only simulants who attend ANC receive IFA/MMS (verification with sim outputs)

  • Confirm that baseline verification targets are still met for the following parameters:

    • Baseline hemoglobin exposure (verification with interactive sim)

    • Maternal disorders outcomes (verification with sim outputs, noting existing slight deviation in maternal sepsis incidence rates from model 13.1)

    • LBWSG exposure (verification with interactive sim)

    • Neonatal mortality risk (verification with sim outputs, noting exiting deviations from model 13.3)

    • Birth outcome rates (verification with sim outputs)

  • Confirm expected effect on all affected outcomes. For each affected outcome, the effect of IFA should be examined in the baseline scenario. Then, for each affected outcome, values should be compared between the baseline and MMS scale-up scenarios for identical simulants and we should verify separately the effect of transitioning from baseline IFA coverage to MMS and the transition from no baseline IFA coverage to MMS.

    • Hemoglobin exposure

    • Gestational age

    • Birthweight

    • Birth outcomes (MMS reduces rate of stillbirth, increases rate of live birth, no change to abortion/miscarriage/ectopic outcomes)

  • Additional confirmation of effect of CPAP/ACS interventions with newly added preterm birth stratification to the births observer (as was done in the neonatal checks notebook for model 16.4)

  • There is IFA coverage among those who do not attend ANC

  • Suspicious that cat1/cat2 for IFA/MMS coverage are not being defined consistently

  • Effect of IFA on birthweight in the excess shift data key is low – maybe it’s reading in data from the effect on hemoglobin?

  • Appears that the “raw” hemoglobin exposure is modifying the risk of hemoglobin affected outcomes rather than the intervention-affected hemoglobin exposure

  • Unable to verify effect of IFA and MMS on gestational age or birthweight, intervention effect on preterm birth in simulation results does not meet verification target

  • Potential common random numbers issues between scenarios… individual differences between BW and GA exposures have a very large range and the mean is not the expected value

  • Hemoglobin exposure does not update as expected between baseline and MMS scenarios at the individual level (some simulants who should have no change have increases and some have decreases, some who should have a chane have no change)

Model 17.0 V&V notebooks

18.0

Anemia screening implementation

  • Confirm scenario-specific anemia screening coverage rates (verification with sim outputs)

  • Confirm only simulants who attend ANC are covered by hemoglobin screening (verification with sim outputs)

  • Confirm only simulants who attend ANC AND test low hemoglobin are covered by ferritin screening (verification with sim outputs)

  • Confirm sensitivity and specificity of hemoglobin screening test by comparing true versus test hemoglobin screening results (verification with sim outputs)

  • Confirm “true” low hemoglobin rate matches corresponding GBD anemia impairment prevalence in pregnancy estimate (verification with sim outputs)

  • Confirm low ferriting screening result matches expectation (verification with sim outputs)

  • Validation: confirm that there are lower rates of true/test low hemoglobin status in the MMS scale-up scenario than the baseline scenario

  • Baseline coverage of hemoglobin screening test does not vary by ANC attendance and is equal to 100% rather than expected baseline coverage value

  • Coverage of ferritin screening does not vary by ANC attendance or by tests low hemoglobin exposure as expected

  • Hemoglobin screening test is not reading in the expected hemoglobin measure: see this comment

  • Hemoglobin sensitivity and specificity are not being applied to hemoglobin screening results

  • Anemia status during pregnancy assessment is not reading in the expected hemoglobin measure: see this comment

Interactive simulation notebook for model 18.0 found here. Note that simulation results for this run were not generated due to too many observer stratifications.

18.1

Oral iron antenatal supplementation (IFA/MMS) bugfixes (interactive sim only)

  • Same as 17.0

  • IFA coverage varies by ANC attendance as expected

  • Coverage of baseline IFA is equal to 1 - the expected value (reading in cat1 exposure rather than cat2)

  • Baseline calibration of IFA on hemoglobin is using the value of IFA coverage among ANC attendees rather than among the entire population

  • Hemoglobin relative risk values vary according to non-intervention affected hemoglobin exposure

  • Common random numbers not applied appropriately to ANC attendance between scenarios

18.2

Oral iron antenatal supplementation (IFA/MMS) bugfixes continued (interactive sim only)

Same as 17.0

  • Baseline IFA coverage, calibration, and effects on hemoglobin are all functioning as expected

  • Coverage and effects of MMS on hemoglobin is functioning as expected

  • Hemoglobin RR values vary according to intervention-affected hemoglobin exposure, as desired

  • Common random numbers functioning as expected between scenarios with respect to ANC attendance and oral iron intervention coverage

  • Pipeline values for iron_folic_acid_supplementation_on_birth_weight.effect and iron_folic_acid_supplementation_on_gestational_age.effect contain the expected values, but cannot verify how these are being applied to LBWSG exposures.

  • Cannot verify that common random numbers are functioning as expected with regard to LBWSG exposure between scenarios

18.3

Fix observer stratifications and multiple bugfixes

Same as 17.0 and 18.0

Meeting the following criteria:

  • Oral iron coverage looks good by ANC and scenario

  • Effect of IFA and MMS on hemoglobin looks good (both in the interactive sim and sim results)

  • The ‘first_anc_hemoglobin.exposure’ pipeline value looks as expected (IFA-affected for those who are covered by IFA and attend ANC during their first trimester)

  • Hemoglobin screening is among those who attend ANC only, as expected and scales up by scenario as expected

  • Ferritin screening is among those who test low hemoglobin only

  • Neonatal mortality appears in line with previous versions

  • Maternal disorders burden appears in line with previous versions

Partially meeting the following criteria:

  • Effects of IFA and MMS on gestational age and birth weight looks as expected in the interactive sim, but no evidence of effect in simulation results (confirmed no effect on simulation results generated using the same model_spec file and environment used for the interactive simulation investigation)

  • No observed difference in maternal hemorrhage incidence by scenario in the simulation results despite differences in hemoglobin exposure by scenario and despite that hemoglobin appears to be affecting maternal hemorrhage incidence in the interactive sim in the baseline scenario (confirmed no effect on simulation results generated using the same model_spec file and environment used for the interactive simulation investigation)

Not meeting the following criteria:

  • Anemia status during pregnancy appears to be reading in inappropriate hemoglobin exposure measure (IFA-deleted rather than first ANC)

  • Hemoglobin screening test appears to be reading in inappropriate hemoglobin exposure measure (IFA-deleted rather than first ANC). Note that this is expected to be causing the following two issues as well: no change in test hemoglobin exposure by scenario (despite changes in true hemoglobin exposure by scenario), and an underestimation of hemoglobin test specificity

  • Less than 100% ferritin screening coverage among those who test low hemoglobin. It appears that there may be an additional requirement to have truly low hemoglobin in order to test for ferritin, but this should not be the case.

  • No impact of MMS on stillbirth, either in simulation results or interactive sim (despite meeting verification criteria in previous model versions)

  • No difference in neonatal deaths between the baseline and MMS scale-up scenarios despite increased coverage of MMS and effects on LBWSG exposure

  • No difference in preterm birth counts between the baseline and MMS scale-up scenarios despite increased coverage of MMS and effects on gestational age

See all 18.3 V&V notebooks here

19.1

GBD 2023 Update part 2

  • Confirm all parameters continue to meet V&V criteria in the baseline scenario

  • Confirm list of draws has been updated in accordance with GBD 2023 strategy

  • Zero neonatal deaths in Ethiopia and Nigeria (related to issue addressed in this PR)

  • In Pakistan, neonatal mortality risk appears to has greater miscalibration than previous models (thought to be related to same issue linked in the above PR)

  • BEMONC and CEMONC delivery rates are not meeting generated verification criteria (likewise thought to be a result of BEMONC/CEMONC data versions used inconsistently)

  • Confirmed list of draws has been updated as expected

  • Maternal disorders burden and all facility choice targets other than BEMONC/CEMONC fraction are matching expectations

  • Note that the portion of all pregnancies that result in abortion/miscarriage/ectopic pregnancy has increased for Nigeria and Ethiopia and decreased for Pakistan such that the difference in this parameter between these locations is now fairly large and fairly high in Nigeria/Ethiopia (<10% and ~45% respectively)

Model 19.1 V&V notebooks found here

19.1.1

Fix BEMONC/CEMONC data issue

Same as 19.1 and confirm specific issues from 19.1 are resolved

  • Issue of zero neonatal deaths in Nigeria and Ethiopia resolved

  • Maternal disorders burden and all facility choice results are meeting expectations

  • Underestimation in sim results of neonatal mortality risk for all causes as well as cause-specific mortality for all modeled causes with the exception of other causes in Pakistan

  • No underestimation of neonatal all-cause mortality risk in interactive simulation with recalculated LBWSG PAFs – upon investigation, can only replicate the LBWSG PAFs in the artifact by using uncapped RRs

  • Mortality risk in the late neonatal age group is closer to target than for the early neonatal age group, although with some variation

Model 19.1.1 V&V notebooks Model 19.1.1 interactive sim neonatal mortality V&V notebook

19.1.2

Recalculate LBWSG PAFs with capped RRs

Same as 19.1.1 and confirm specific issues from 19.1.1 are resolved

  • Neonatal mortality improved from model 19.1.1, (qualitatively) within expected margin from known issues

Model 19.1.2 neonatal V&V notebook

20.0

In-hospital (CEmONC) delivery estimates from HS team

  • Confirm expected delivery facility attendance rates

  • Confirm neonatal mortality still matches expectation and that our neonatal intervention PAF calculations have not been thrown out of calibration

  • BEMONC fraction of facility deliveries is updated from model 19 and the simulation result matches the artifact value

  • Zero neonatal deaths in all locations

  • Maternal sepsis incidence (and mortality) overestimated in all locations. Appears to be due to intrapartum azithromycin PAF values in the model 20.0 artifact equal to zero for all locations. PAF values for this intervention are expected to be non-zero (even Ethiopia and Nigeria that have zero baseline coverage because we have implemented the intervention as the “lack of intervention” risk factor, which has an RR>1 and 100% coverage in these locations).

Model 20.0 V&V notebooks here

20.0.1

Bugfixes from In-hospital (CEmONC) delivery estimates from HS team

  • Same as 20.0/confirm specific issues from 20.0 have been resolved

  • Issues with zeros for neonatal deaths and azithromycin PAFs have been resolved

  • Issues with delivery facility V&V criteria:

    • Underestimating in facility delivery rate

    • Overestimating the prevalence of preterm births (and we see an underestimating of preterm at home births and an overestimation at facility births relative to validation targets)

    • Home delivery rate underestimated among believed preterm babies and overestimated among believed term babies

  • All cause neonatal mortality appears systematically overestimated in Nigeria and Pakistan, although still within the 10% margin of error - perhaps a result of the miscalibrated delivery facilities?

  • Maternal sepsis incidence overestimation has been reduced to the level that was present in model 19.1.1 (~10% rather than the 60% seen in model 20.0). Remaining overestimation hoped to be resolved with the hemoglobin PAF update.

Model 20.0.1 V&V notebooks

20.0.2

Fix delivery facility model issues

  • Confirm issues from 20.0.1 are resolved

  • Specific issues from 20.0.1 are resolved.

  • However, preterm birth is overestimated in this model run. This is related to known bugs in the oral iron intervention model as it interacts with the LBWSG model across timesteps in the simulation. Run 20.0.2 was run after merging with a branch containing the oral iron intervention implementation whereas model 20.0.1 was run on a separate branch.

20.1

Sensitivity analysis baseline run without oral iron

  • Regression testing

  • Confirm AI ultrasound impact similar to model 18.4

Outputs looks as expected!

20.1.1

Sensitivity analysis with extreme US error values

  • Confirm AI ultrasound impact larger than model 20.1

Outputs look as expected!

20.2

Sensitivity analysis with lower bound US error values

  • Confirm AI ultrasound impact much smaller than model 20.1.1

Outputs look as expected!

20.3

Sensitivity analysis with upper bound US error values

  • Confirm AI ultrasound impact larger than model 20.2, much smaller than model 20.1.1

Outputs look as expected!

21.0

Hemoglobin refactor

Using simulation outputs:

  • Confirm hemoglobin screening occurs among those who attend later pregnancy ANC only and occurs at the expected scenario-specific coverage rate among this population

  • Confirm ferritin screening occurs among those who with low hemoglobin screening test result only and occurs at the expected scenario-specific coverage rate among this population

  • Confirm that IFA and MMS coverage only occurs among those who attend ANC and matches scenario-specific expected values

  • Confirm that the number of “low” hemoglobin screening results is lower in the MMS scale-up than baseline scenario

  • Confirm that incident cases of maternal hemorrhage and maternal sepsis are lower in the MMS scale-up than baseline scenario

In the interactive simulation:

  • Confirm hemoglobin exposure at the start of pregnancy reflects expected “IFA-deleted value”

  • Confirm expected magnitude of IFA and MMS effects on hemoglobin for those covered who attend the first trimester ANC visit at the first trimester hemoglobin timestep

  • Confirm that there are no changes to hemoglobin exposure between the first trimester ANC visit and anemia screening timesteps

  • Confirm expected magnitude of IFA and MMS effects on hemoglobin for those covered who attend the later pregnancy ANC visit at the later pregnancy ANC visit hemoglobin timestep, making sure those who attend both ANC visits do not receive the effect of IFA/MMS twice

  • Confirm that “anemia status during pregnancy” (which affects ferritin exposure) is assigned in accordance with hemoglobin exposure at the anemia screening timestep and the pregnancy-specific anemia impairment thresholds

  • Confirm that ferritin exposure among those tested matches input data expectation. Note that we have assumed low ferritin exposure among those without anemia to be 50% of the value among those with mild anemia.

  • Confirm that sensitivity and specificity of the hemoglobin screening test matches expectation based on hemoglobin exposure at the anemia screening timestep

  • Confirm that hemoglobin exposure values do not change between the later pregnancy ANC hemoglobin timestep and the end of pregnancy hemoglobin timestep

  • Confirm that incidence risk of maternal sepsis and maternal hemorrhage vary in accordance with hemoglobin exposure at the end of pregnancy timestep and hemoglobin RR values

Note that the effects of hemoglobin on LBWSG exposure or pregnancy outcome are not yet expected to meet V&V criteria.

Could not run facility choice V&V because PR exposing the V&V targets had not been integrated into the branch this was run from. On further inspection, artifact had been based on 20.1.1 (which was for sensitivity analysis only).

21.0.1

Hemoglobin refactor run correction

Same as 21.0

21.0.1 was only partially V&Ved, checking criteria that did not require an interactive sim. This partial V&V surfaced two bugs: believed preterm was always false, and ACS eligibility was always false.

21.0.1 V&V notebooks available here

21.1

Add dichotomous true hemoglobin output

  • Confirm hemoglobin screening sensitivity and specificity in simulation outputs

  • Confirm that scenario-specific counts of maternal sepsis and hemorrhage did not change after adding this measure (indicates that we are not accidentally referencing this hemoglobin exposure measure in our risk effect models)

  • Confirm that true “low” hemoglobin exposure counts are lower in the MMS scenario than the baseline scenario

  • Confirm that “true” low hemoglobin rate matches corresponding GBD anemia impairment prevalence in pregnancy estimate (note that we expect to slightly overestimate anemia prevalence since we have not yet applied full impact of baseline IFA at the time that we observe this measure)

Not V&Ved before next model was run.

21.1.1

Hemoglobin refactor: more bug fixes

Combination of 21.0 and 21.1.

  • Newly-noticed bug that had been present since 18.3: anemia screening coverage is inverted (one minus the correct value).

  • Interactive sim criteria from 21.0 are met; ferritin_screening_coverage and anemia_status_during_pregnancy columns are not updated appropriately, and the hemoglobin_exposure column is updated one time step after the hemoglobin exposure changes, but it seems like neither is causing real issues. Specifically:

    • ferritin_screening_coverage appears to not be used and can be removed from the simulation

    • anemia_status_during_pregnancy is always null

    • the hemoglobin_exposure variable in the state table lags behind the hemoglobin exposure pipeline value by one timestep

  • Bugs from 21.0.1 fixed successfully.

  • 21.1 V&V criteria met.

  • Note: we can’t check azithromycin, misoprostol, ACS, or CPAP RRs in simulation results. Need to add scenarios for this.

21.1.1 V&V notebooks available here

22.0.0

Add residual and other maternal disorders

  • Confirm incidence and mortality risk of existing cause-specific maternal disorders matches expectation (we don’t expect them to be exactly the same due to changes in stochastic uncertainty, but same trends as before, noting that sepsis and hemorrhage are slightly miscalibrated due to the hemoglobin PAFs we are using)

  • Confirm expected mortality ratios of (1) residual and (2) abortion/ectopic/miscarriage causes

  • Confirm expected YLDs due to (1) residual and (2) abortion/ectopic/miscarriage causes

  • Confirm that mortality and morbidity due to residual maternal disorders happens among live and stillbirths only and that abortion/ectopic/miscarriage mortality does not

Residual maternal disorders not included in observation

No notebooks due to lack of observers, see 22.0.1

22.0.1

Residual maternal disorders observer

Same as 22.0.0

Everything matches, except that cause ID 1160 rather than 379 was included in “residual maternal disorders”

22.0.1 V&V notebooks available here

22.0.2

Residual maternal disorders bugfix

Same as 22.0.0

Everything matches

22.0.2 V&V notebooks available here

23.0

Remaining pregnancy model refactor

In the simulation outputs:

  • Confirm inverted anemia screening baseline coverage bug has been resolved

  • Confirm expected effects of IFA and MMS on preterm birth outputs (note this will be confounded by ANC in the sim outputs, so RRs should be calculated stratified by ANC attendance exposure)

  • Confirm that preterm birth counts, and neonatal deaths now vary between the baseline and MMS scale-up scenarios

  • Confirm that baseline calibration still looks appropriate, particularly with respect to preterm birth counts, neonatal mortality, pregnancy outcomes, and facility choice (effect of baseline IFA on GA may have throw off our preterm/ANC correlation from the calibration)

In the interactive simulation:

  • Confirm the expected magnitude of GA and BW shifts due to IFA and MMS

  • Confirm that neonatal mortality varies by the intervention-modified GA and BW exposures

  • Confirm that the ultrasound gestational age dating is based on intervention-modified gestational age at birth exposure

  • Anemia screening baseline coverage resolved

  • Application of IFA and MMS effects on gestational age and birthweight is functioning as expected

  • In the interactive simulation, the effect of IFA on preterm birth appears overestimated in Nigeria and Ethiopia, but looks okay for Pakistan in simulation results

  • In the interactive simulation, the birth weight and gestational age pipeline values appear to maintain constant LBWSG exposure category across timestep, but continuous exposure values within that category reset each timestep (intervention effects are maintained across the changes to the continuous values). A consistent value is maintained in the state table, and this appears to be the value that is used for downstream impacts of BW and GA values, so it does not appear to be causing any direct issues. However, it is confusing and seems more likely to cause a future error and makes it more challenging to perform V&V on the effect of baseline IFA. (Note this behavior is demonstrated in the model 23.0 interactive_simulation_lbwsg notebook)

    • NOTE: this issue was addressed in this engineering PR. It’s successful implementation was verified in the “23.0_bugfix” interactive_simulation_lbwsg notebook

  • Early neonatal other causes mortality risk in Pakistan is overestimated in our simulation relative to GBD.

  • The following issues are thought to be related to a failure to account for the correlation between LBWSG exposure and ANC attendance in the calculation of IFA gestational age shifts:

    • Effect of IFA on preterm birth appears overestimated in Nigeria and Ethiopia, but looks okay for Pakistan in simulation results

    • Preterm birth prevalence overestimated

    • Overestimating believed term status among truly preterm infants

  • The following parameters are non-null for partial term pregnancies, which is unexpected

    • In the interactive simulation

      • Birth weight and gestational age

      • Child sex

      • Child mortality risk

    • In observed simulation results

      • Preterm birth

      • Believed preterm birth

      • ACS eligible

  • There is zero coverage of “ACS availability” for stillbirths. This should not be the case.

Model 23.0 V&V notebooks available here

24.0

MMS stillbirth effects and GA floors

  • In the interactive simulation, confirm that minimum gestational age values stratified by pregnancy outcome match floors documented, minus baseline IFA calibration shift

  • Confirm that neonatal mortality calibration was not worsened relative to prior model run (as this change may affect the LBWSG PAF values)

  • Confirm expected effects of IFA and MMS on pregnancy outcomes (note this will be confounded by ANC attendance in the simulation outputs, so RRs should be calculated stratified by ANC attendance exposure)

  • Confirm expected effects of misoprostol and azithromycin interventions on maternal disorders using scenarios #12 and #13

  • Zero neonatal deaths

  • Did not yet check other criteria

V&V notebooks included in this PR

24.1

MMS stillbirth effects and GA floors with neonatal deaths bugfix

Same as 24.0

  • Neonatal mortality looks good again

  • GA floors do not appear to vary by pregnancy outcome

  • Did not yet check other criteria

V&V notebooks included in this PR

24.2

MMS stillbirth effects and GA floors with neonatal deaths bugfix and re-generated RR caps

Same as 24.0

  • Neonatal mortality unchanged from 24.1 – this run was unnecessary, we hadn’t realized that the RR cap calculation doesn’t use interpolated relative risks

  • MMS on stillbirth effects appear correct

  • Misoprostol and azithromycin effects appear correct

  • GA floors still not fixed (as expected)

V&V notebooks included in this PR

24.3

Same as 24.0

  • No regressions noted

  • GA floors are a bit lower than we realized due to baseline IFA calibration (not a bug; clarified V&V criteria)

  • GA floor for stillbirth does not appear to be working

  • Hemoglobin screening coverage still inverted

V&V notebooks included in this PR

24.4

GA floor fixes 2

In the interactive simulation, confirm that minimum gestational age values stratified by pregnancy outcome match floors documented, minus baseline IFA calibration shift

  • No regressions noted

  • GA floor for stillbirth corrected

  • Hemoglobin screening coverage corrected

V&V notebooks included in this PR

25.0

Update SBR to >=24 weeks

  • Stillbirth ratio in simulation still matches artifact

  • Stillbirth ratio should be slightly decreased relative to previous model

  • Zero neonatal deaths

  • Run appears to have had some failed jobs

  • Stillbirth criteria look good

V&V notebooks in this PR

25.0.1

Update SBR to >=24 weeks run bugfixes

Same as 25.0, plus: * Neonatal mortality matches expectation * Regression tests pass (no CRN issues due to failed jobs)

  • Issues noted in 25.0 resolved

  • Stillbirth criteria still look good

  • Hemoglobin screening coverage looking inverted, as in pre-23.0 runs

  • No noted regressions

V&V notebooks in this PR

26.0

IV iron coverage and effect on hemoglobin

  • Confirm scenario-specific IV iron and anemia screening coverage rates (verification with sim outputs)

  • Confirm only simulants who attend ANC, who test low hemoglobin AND test low ferritin receive IV iron (verification with interactive sim)

  • Confirm IV iron has the expected effect on hemoglobin (verification in the interactive simulation)

  • Confirm that hemoglobin exposure (using the interactive simulation) and maternal disorders outcomes (using sim outputs) still meet expectations

  • All new criteria passing

  • Hemoglobin screening coverage looking inverted, as in pre-23.0 runs

V&V notebooks in this PR

27.0

IV iron effects on BW, GA, and stillbirth

  • Confirm the baseline outcomes still meet expectations, including:

    • LBWSG exposure (in the interactive simulation)

    • Neonatal mortality risk

    • Birth outcome rates

  • Confirm expected effects of IV iron on birth weight, gestational age, and birth outcome rates using the interactive simulation

  • Effects of IV iron on stillbirth, gestational age, and birthweight are based on hemoglobin exposure at the later pregnancy intervention timestep rather than the first trimester ANC timestep as intended

  • LBWSG exposures appear to reset between scenarios for simulants whose birth outcomes change between scenarios. LBWSG exposures should remain consistent between scenarios for these simulants to avoid noise in the intervention effects of IV iron

  • Hemoglobin exposure in the state table is missing until the later pregnancy intervention timestep (although the pipeline value appears to be functioning correctly for the earlier timesteps, it does interfere with some tests we’ve written)

Model 27.0 V&V notebooks

27.1

IV iron effects on BW, GA, and stillbirth bugfixes

Same as 27.0, with issues noted there fixed

All checks passed

Model 27.1 V&V notebooks are spread across two PRs: here and here

28.0

Pakistan fistula update

  • Confirm that YLDs due to obstructed labor in Pakistan have been updated and our simulated values match input expectations

All checks passed

Model 28.0 V&V notebooks

28.1

Merge 28.0 and 27.1

Regression testing

All checks passed

Model 28.1 V&V notebooks

29.0

Anemia YLDs

  • In the interactive simulation, confirm postpartum hemoglobin exposure matches hemoglobin exposure at the end of pregnancy for simulants who survive to the postpartum period

  • Baseline simulated anemia YLDs should match corresponding pregnancy-specific GBD values

  • Anemia YLDs should decrease in MMS/IV iron scale-up scenarios

  • Confirm that ferritin screening results are unchanged

  • Baseline anemia YLDs systematically overestimated

  • Ferritin screening results unchanged, as expected

  • Anemia YLDs do decrease in the MMS and IV iron scale-up scenarios

Model 29.0 V&V notebooks

29.1

Anemia YLDs sensitivity analysis

  • Check whether overestimation in anemia YLDs goes away without oral iron effects on hemoglobin

  • Anemia YLDs even more overestimated

  • Debugging indicates that IFA deletion is still being applied

Model 29.1 V&V notebooks

29.2

Anemia YLDs sensitivity analysis bugfix

Same as 29.1

  • Anemia YLD overestimate now smaller than in 29.0, but still present

  • Interactive sim checks indicate that abortion/miscarriage/ectopic pregnancies are calculating anemia YLDs based on durations longer than the pregnancy duration

Model 29.2 V&V notebooks

29.0.1

Anemia YLDs bugfixes

Same as 29.0, and that issues noticed in 29.2 are resolved

Results indicate that oral iron effects on gestational age are not being applied

Model 29.0.1 V&V notebooks

29.0.2

Anemia YLDs bugfixes 2

Same as 29.0.1, and confirm that oral iron effects on gestational age are being applied

Round 1:

  • Oral iron effects on gestational age are fixed

  • Anemia YLDs still overestimated, but to a lesser extent than in 29.0

Round 2:

  • Negative durations are present in anemia YLD calculations both due to abortion/miscarriage/ectopic pregnancies having a “placeholder” later ANC time which may be after the end of pregnancy, and due to stillbirths having their later ANC time calculated based on pregnancy duration before stillbirth truncation is applied

  • There is also a theoretical possibility of negative durations if IV iron shortens a pregnancy (which it can) but we do not see this (at reasonable sample size) because these effects are small

29.2.1

Merge 29.2 and 29.0.2

Same as 29.2

  • Anemia YLDs still overestimated, but even less than in 29.0.2

  • Interactive sim checks indicate that there are still some negative durations in the anemia YLD calculations

Model 29.2.1 V&V notebooks

30.0

Oral iron GA shift refactor

  • Checks from 17.0

  • Regression testing

  • Confirm that updated shifts were implemented correctly based on the ANC and IFA categories (in interactive sim)

  • Confirm that oral iron effect on preterm birth in simulation results meets verification target (was not met in 17.0), verify effect on GA and BW

  • Facility choice model targets (checks from 15.0)

  • Oral iron effect on preterm birth improved – about half as underestimated as in model 17.0

  • Preterm birth still equally overestimated in facility choice model targets, which we thought would improve

  • All other checks passing

Model 30.0 V&V notebooks

29.0.3

Anemia YLDs with pipeline consolidation (PC)

Same as 29.0.2

  • YLD rates and prevalence rates look high, in addition to YLDs per pregnancy

Model 29.0.3 V&V notebooks

29.0.3s (note that this was based on 29.2.1 in addition to 29.0.3; this was a numbering error)

Anemia YLDs with pipeline consolidation (PC) sensitivity analysis

Same as 29.2.1

YLD rates and prevalence rates still look high, in addition to YLDs per pregnancy, but they are lower than in 29.0.3

Model 29.0.3s V&V notebooks

29.0.4

Anemia YLDs with stillbirth fix

Same as 29.0.3

  • Issue of negative durations in stillbirths (identified in 29.2.1) is fixed

Model 29.0.4 V&V notebooks

29.0.4s

Anemia YLDs with stillbirth fix sensitivity analysis

Same as 29.0.3s

  • Similar to 29.0.4

  • However, issue (not new) noted in person-time observer: person-time not observed correctly in the postpartum period

Model 29.0.4s V&V notebooks

29.0.5

Anemia YLDs with person-time observer fix

Same as 29.0.4

  • Issue of person-time not observed correctly in the postpartum period is fixed

Model 29.0.5 V&V notebooks

29.0.5s

Anemia YLDs with person-time observer fix sensitivity analysis

Same as 29.0.4s

  • Similar to 29.0.4s, but with person-time observer fix

Model 29.0.5s V&V notebooks

31.0

Update hemoglobin exposure to release ID 33

Confirm that hemoglobin checks continue to pass, with validation targets updated to release ID 33

  • Anemia YLDs (per pregnancy and in rate space) remain higher than GBD

  • By severity, moderate anemia YLD rates are overestimated and severe anemia YLD rates are underestimated

  • GBD location aggregation for prevalence was done using total (not pregnant) population; all checks in this model and in 31.0s are using a re-aggregated prevalence

  • Significant difference between prevalence in the draws we selected and the full set of draws

  • Moderate anemia prevalence rates are systematically higher than GBD, and not much of this can be explained by location aggregation of hemoglobin exposure (presumed to be due to baseline IFA deletion, see 31.0s)

  • Severe anemia prevalence rates are systematically lower than GBD, but this is more than explained by location aggregation of hemoglobin exposure; accounting for that, they are overestimated (also presumed to be due to baseline IFA deletion, see 31.0s)

  • Disability weights by severity approximately match GBD, though we have not yet found a citation for these

Model 31.0 V&V notebooks

31.0s

Update hemoglobin exposure to release ID 33 sensitivity analysis

Same as 29.0.5s, but with hemoglobin exposure updated to release ID 33

  • Anemia YLDs per pregnancy remain higher than GBD even without oral iron effects

  • However, anemia YLD rates are lower than GBD, indicating that pregnancy durations are longer in our simulation

  • Anemia YLD rate underestimation is primarily due to an underestimation of the severe anemia YLD rate

  • Severe anemia prevalence rates are systematically lower than GBD; most of this can be explained by location aggregation of hemoglobin exposure

  • In Ethiopia and Nigeria the sim underestimates anemia prevalence as compared to risk_distributions using location-aggegated hemoglobin exposure; we do not understand the reason for this, and it contributes to the underestimation of severe anemia in these countries

Model 31.0s V&V notebooks

Larger run for neonatal mortality V&V

Confirm expected rates of cause-specific and overall maternal disorders causes

Update hemoglobin effects

  • Confirm that neonatal mortality (particularly for neonatal sepsis) still matches expectation in the baseline scenario

  • Using the interactive simulation, confirm effect of hemoglobin exposure on neonatal sepsis. Direct effect should be evaluated using the pipeline RR values. The total effect should be evaluated by stepping through the simulation and observing the rate of mortality due to neonatal sepsis stratified by maternal hemoglobin exposure.

Effects of maternal disorders on postpartum hemoglobin

  • In the interactive simulation, confirm expected effects on postpartum hemoglobin according to incident maternal disorders

  • Note that the baseline value of anemia YLDs should slightly increase relative to the value in the “Anemia YLDs” model run

Separate LBWSG affected causes

  • Confirm that neonatal mortality continues to validate in the baseline scenario

  • Confirm that deaths averted between the baseline and MMS scale-up scenarios have decreased between this model run and the previous

  • In the interactive simulation, confirm that mortality due to both LBWSG-affected and LBWSG-unaffected causes vary in accordance with baseline LBWSG exposures

  • In the interactive simulation, confirm that mortality due to LBWSG-affected causes varies in accordance with intervention modified LBWSG exposure and that mortality due to LBWSG-unaffected causes varies in accordance with pre-intervention modified LBWSG exposure

Trimester-specific ultrasound

  • Confirm that all facility choice model targets are met (see list for model 15.0)

  • Confirm ultrasound coverage matches inputs for all scenarios

  • Confirm that ratio between ultrasound timing categories matches the expected ratio between first trimester ANC attendance and later pregnancy only ANC attendance. More specifically, the following should be true standard_first_trimester / standard_later_pregnancy == ai_assisted_first_trimester / ai_assisted_later_pregnancy == (anc_first_trimester_only + anc_first_trimester_and_later_pregnancy) / anc_later_pregnancy_only

  • Confirm that ultrasounds performed in the first trimester occur only among those who attend ANC in the first trimester according to their ANC attendance category (and likewise for later pregnancy)

  • Confirm gestational age estimate and real gestational age have the correct margin of error based on ultrasound type and timing (specific distribution of errors assessed in the interactive simulation and summary “confusion matrix” assessed as part of the facility choice model V&V targets)

Outstanding model verification and validation issues

Issue

Explanation

Action plan

Timeline

Unnecessary data assigned to abortion/miscarriage/ectopic pregnancy in the interactive simulation

Including gestational age/birth weight exposures as well as neonatal mortality risk

Engineers to update at their convenience

TBD

Overestimating proportion of believed term given preterm fraction

Originally thought to be related to failure to account for additional correlation induced by the baseline IFA calibration with respect to gestational age, but this has not been resolved by model 30.0 updates to the oral iron GA shift implementation. New theory is that our calibration causes mean gestational age to match, but not the proportion of preterm.

Research to investigate <https://jira.ihme.washington.edu/browse/SSCI-2614>

TBD

Early neonatal other causes mortality risk in Pakistan overestimated

Unknown

Assess whether this is due to the negative other causes mortality rate issue in the neonatal mortality V&V run

Neonatal mortality V&V run

Abortion/miscarriage/ectopic pregnancies have non-null values for preterm birth, believed preterm, ACS eligibility in observed simulation results. While we can filter these results out, it presents opportunity for error in analyzing results and these values should be updated to N/A for partial term pregnancies

Partial term pregnancies are assigned LBWSG exposures in the interactive sim and therefore are observed for these outputs

Engineers to update at the same time as implementing observer revamp (not yet documented as of 12/18/25)

TBD

There is zero coverage of “ACS availability” among stillbirths even though stillbirths should be eligible and covered by this intervention.

Likely a result of there being null coverage for CPAP availability for stillbirths (because they are not alive to receive CPAP). However, stillbirths should receive ACS coverage if they are in the relevant believed gestational age range and delivering in a facility that has CPAP access.

Wait until we split stillbirths into antepartum and intrapartum before we address this issue, as only intrapartum stillbirths should receive ACS coverage (?)

TBD

Ferritin exposure model needs updating

Ali’s documentation issue resulted in known issues with ferritin data used for implementation of anemia screening model

Either update to strategy outlined in this PR or an alternative strategy using PRISMA data shared by the Gates foundation

Will decide how to proceed when we receive PRISMA data

Unable to verify ferritin screening results among those who are not anemic according to hemoglobin level at the time of testing

Re-address when we update ferritin exposure model

Maintain existing behavior for now

TBD

Peripartum depression model needs updating

Current implementation is based off of an adaptation of the assumptions used in the GBD 2021 major depressive disorders cause model

We will need to either (1) update our model to be in line with the GBD 2023 model and consider updating our PAF calculation strategy as described in this ticket, or (2) update to the extra-GBD data on peripartum depression obtained from the mental disorders modelers

Will decide how to proceed after discussing with the mental disorders modelers

Miscalibration of maternal sepsis incidence rates, particularly for Nigeria

Thought to be due to using the fatal PAF from GBD applied to incidence and/or the location-aggregated PAF for our modeled locations which are not most detailed locations

Update to custom-calculated PAF and reassess

TBD

Late neonatal mortality due to preterm birth slightly underestimated and other-causes mortality may be slightly overestimated (though within 10%)

Unknown – possibly related to negative other causes mortality in Pakistan and Nigeria.

Neonatal mortality observers

Larger run for neonatal mortality V&V

Late neonatal mortality due to preterm birth with RDS slightly (~2%) underestimated

The PAF of ACS and CPAP on preterm birth with RDS CSMRisk is calculated with delivery facility proportions at birth, not at 7 days

Accept this limitation, until/unless there are other reasons to revamp PAF calculation, since this would require many components not currently present in PAF sim

N/A

Early neonatal mortality due to preterm birth with RDS slightly (~1.5%) overestimated and late neonatal mortality slightly (~0.75%) underestimated across all causes

The PAF of ACS and CPAP on preterm birth with RDS CSMRisk is calculated without accounting for correlation between LBWSG and CPAP/ACS, which is induced by the facility choice model. The miscalibration in ENN causes miscalibration of LBWSG exposure for LNN.

Accept these limitations, until/unless there are other reasons to revamp PAF calculation, since this would require many components not currently present in PAF sim. Note that the LNN limitation stacks with the previous limitation for preterm birth with RDS to result in a nearly 3% underestimate in that LNN CSMRisk.

N/A

In GBD 2023 data for Pakistan the mortality values for the abortion and miscarriage cause (c_995) are very small (nearly the lowest of any national location globally), causing unexpectedly low YLLs (~100 times fewer than India)

Possible issue with ST-GPR model reacting to an all-zero datapoint added in GBD 2023 for Pakistan

Determine cause of issue with GBD modeling team, decide whether to leave as-is or use a proxy location

TBD

LBWSG exposures change between scenarios for simulants whose birth outcome changes between scenarios

Due to different exposure distributions used for stillbirths vs. livebirths, given the different floors.

Accept this limitation

N/A

Severe anemia underestimated due to underestimate of hemoglobin exposure standard deviation for aggregated locations

Hemoglobin exposure SDs for aggregated locations have been generated by central machinery as a population-weighted mean of the SDs for the most detailed locations, which would only be correct if the mean exposure were the same across the most detailed locations.

GBD anemia team to update the database and/or provide a flat file for these SDs

N/A

Moderate anemia overestimated due to IFA delays

We delete baseline IFA from all simulants and only add back the impact on hemoglobin when they receive IFA at ANC. This inflates anemia prevalence vs the GBD hemoglobin distribution.

Accept this limitation for now; if we revisit the baseline IFA deletion in the future, we can reassess this issue

N/A

6.0 Limitations

  • Unclear if we will be able to include upstream factors, but these are likely correlated with many things such as ANC visit rate, care available, or even outcome rates

  • We currently do not consider the potential impact of pregnancy outcome, mode of delivery, or preterm status on postpartum depression incidence (although we do model the impact of hemoglobin on PPD incidence). This may cause us to underestimate the impact of interventions that work through these mechanisms on postpartum depression burden.

  • Factors such as birth asphyxia have been shown to predisopose infants to infection which can result in sepsis [Tikmani-et-al-2016]. We do not model a relationship between birth asphyxia and sepsis, so we do not capture any indirect effects of interventions to reduce birth asphyxia (like cesarean sections) on sepsis as mediated through reductions in birth asphyxia.

  • We assume that all maternal deaths occur at the conclusion of the intrapartum period and prior to the start of the postpartum period. Therefore, we assume it is not possible for any simulants who die of a maternal disorder to experience postpartum YLDs (such as those due to postpartum depression and/or postpartum anemia). However, this may be possible in reality, particularly for those who die of “late maternal deaths.”

  • We track certain outcomes among abortion/miscarriage/ectopic pregnancies in this model, including first trimester ANC attendance and associated interventions, anemia YLDs, and postpartum depression. However, these pregnancies are not given special consideration other than their premature end and we do not consider how this population may differ from pregnancies that end in live or still births in terms of their ANC attendance rates or other attributes beyond maternal disorders burden. Additionally, we do not model any variation in these attributes by subtype (abortion vs. miscarriage vs. ectopic pregnancy), despite there being expected differences in behavior between these groups.

  • We do not model an underlying correlation between hemoglobin exposure and stillbirth rates, despite evidence that such an association exists. Therefore, our IV iron intervention model, which is targeted to those with low hemoglobin, will be misaligned with respect to the stillbirth rate among the IV iron intervention target population.

    • We could use the GBD risk effects between hemoglobin and stillbirth to model baseline correlation only and not model updates in stillbirth rates in response to changes in hemoglobin exposure to address this limitation (as these effects are captured in the impact of the hemoglobin-affecting interventions IV Iron and IFA/MMS already). However, this model upgrade is not highest priority. See this backlog JIRA ticket #2343

  • [Finkelstein-et-al-2024] primarily includes RCTs from high-income countries, so the effect size for IFA on maternal hemoglobin may be overestimated for Sub-Saharan African countries (including Ethiopia and Nigeria) with typically higher rates of non-iron deficiency anemias.

  • We do not currently model an oral iron treatment intervention, despite the recommendation by WHO to treat all pregnancies with IFA and all anemic pregnancies with oral iron treatment (essentially a higher dosage of iron than IFA). We have a JIRA ticket to add this intervention in the future, but it is not currently prioritized. There are some individuals who receive oral iron treatment at baseline and we want to model the replacement of that oral iron treatment with IV iron treatment. However, we are not subtracting out the effect of oral iron treatment prior to modeling the scale up of IV iron treatment. This will result in the following limitations:

    • For individuals who received oral iron treatment at baseline and still remain eligible for IV iron following their oral iron treatment: we will double count the impact of the interventions, thus overestimating the potential scale-up of IV iron.

    • For individuals who received oral iron treatment at baseline and no longer remain eligible for IV iron following their oral iron treatment: there will be essentially no difference in impact for this population given that IV and oral iron treatment have basically equal impacts, however, we will be underestimating the size of the population requiring treatment and therefore underestimating the cost required to achieve the health outcomes seen in these scenarios.

7.0 References/Other

[Tikmani-et-al-2016]

See the “(“Darmstadt 2011” reference in: Tikmani SS, Muhammad AA, Shafiq Y, Shah S, Kumar N, Ahmed I, Azam I, Pasha O, Zaidi AK. Ambulatory Treatment of Fast Breathing in Young Infants Aged <60 Days: A Double-Blind, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Equivalence Trial in Low-Income Settlements of Karachi. Clin Infect Dis. 2017 Jan 15;64(2):184-189. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciw690. Epub 2016 Oct 19. PMID: 27941119; PMCID: PMC5853586.

Note

This concept model was reorganized in April 2025 after much of wave I had been implemented. A record of the PRs for this reorganization are listed below: