diff --git a/docs/source/models/concept_models/vivarium_nutrition_optimization/kids/concept_model.rst b/docs/source/models/concept_models/vivarium_nutrition_optimization/kids/concept_model.rst index 576f5aa66..09e56eb47 100644 --- a/docs/source/models/concept_models/vivarium_nutrition_optimization/kids/concept_model.rst +++ b/docs/source/models/concept_models/vivarium_nutrition_optimization/kids/concept_model.rst @@ -1093,7 +1093,7 @@ Wave II - 13 - - - * - 11.1 + * - 11.1 and 11.2 - Bugfixes and updated observers - Baseline - Baseline, 2, 13 @@ -1138,7 +1138,7 @@ Wave II 5. Wasting transition counts, stratified b BW +/- 2500 grams if possible - * Age group * Sex - * - 10.2 and 10.3 + * - 10.2, 10.3, 10.3.1 - 1. Deaths 2. Wasting state preson time, stratified by wasting treatment coverage (all transitions) 3. Stunting state person time @@ -1155,7 +1155,7 @@ Wave II - * Age group * Sex * Underweight category - * - 11.1 + * - 11.1 and 11.2 - 1. Deaths 2. Wasting state person time (including better/worse MAM differentiation), stratifie by wasting treatment coverage 3. Stunting state person time @@ -1216,6 +1216,10 @@ Wave II The above two issues are resulting in `lack of person-time exposure validation for MAM and SAM states. `_ Otherwise, the underestimation of the mild to susceptible transition rate for all ages (see transition rate notebook) as well as the `treatment coverage issue among the 1-5 month age group have been resolved. `_ + * - 10.3.1 + - Check on wasting transition rates and exposure + - * `Transition rates are now all verifying `_ + * `We are underestimating SAM and MAM exposure `_ despite accurate implementation of wasting transition rates. This may be an issue with our wasting transition rate values rather than model implementation. * - 11.0 - Check implementation of better/worse MAM and targeting of MAM treatment to worse MAM state - * `Ratio of worse:better MAM exposure looks good, but combined MAM exposure is off (low at initialization) `_ @@ -1227,6 +1231,16 @@ Wave II * Appears that there is no targeting based on worse MAM state * `Better/worse MAM transition rates look good, but mild to no wasting transition is underestimated `_ + * - 11.1 + - Check on issues from run 11.1 + - * `Total MAM exposure now looks good at initialization (bug resolved) `_. Note that MAM and SAM is underestimated in 6-59 month ages, but this issue is present in model 10 and therefore not a model 11 bug. + * `MAM treatment targets do not appear to be functioning correctly (bug remains -- no change from model 11.0) `_ + * `Inaccurate MAM/SAM recovery rates among 6-59 month age group (new bugs) `_, including: + + * Underestimated treated SAM->mild transition rate + * Overestimated untreated SAM->worse MAM and SAM->better MAM recovery rates + * Overestimated worse MAM->mild and better MAM->mild recovery rates + .. list-table:: Outstanding V&V issues @@ -1236,23 +1250,19 @@ Wave II - Explanation - Action plan - Timeline - * - 1. Underestimation of MAM to mild transition rate among all age groups older than 6 months - - May be overwriting MAM treatment PAFs to zero for all ages rather than for 1-5 month age group only + * - 1: Underestimation of MAM and SAM exposure despite accurate replication of artifact wasting transition rates + - Unknown, but suspected issue with wasting transition rate values rather than model implementation + - Ali to investigate differences between version 3 of wasting transition rates (succesfully validated as seen in model 7) and version 4 being used in this model. Also to check treatment coverage/effects more in depth. + - ASAP + * - 2: Targeted MAM intervention not targeted to those 6-24 months (should be 100% coverage for this group) + - Unknown -- we thought a fix for this bug was included in model 11.1, but no change from 11.0 + - Engineers to investigate + - Model 11.2 + * - 3: Targeted MAM intervention not targeted to worse MAM state + - Unknown -- we thought a fix for this bug was included in model 11.1, but no change from 11.0 - Engineers to investigate - - For model 10.4 - * - 2. Underestimation of untreated SAM to MAM transition rate among 1-5 month age group - - May not be setting SAM treatment PAFs to zero for 1-5 month age group - - Engineers to investigate - - For model 10.4 - * - 3. Total MAM exposure underestimated for early age groups in model 11.0 - - Identified issue with wasting initialization using worse MAM rather than total MAM - - Hussain implemented fix, but still running - - Model 11.1 - * - 4. Targeted MAM intervention not targeted to those 6-24 months (should be 100% coverage for this group) - - Bug - - Hussain implemented fix, but still running - - Model 11.1 - * - 5. Targeted MAM intervention not targeted to worse MAM state - - Bug - - Hussain implemented fix, but still running - - Model 11.1 + - Model 11.2 + * - 4: Issue with MAM and SAM recovery rates among 6-59 month age group + - Unknown, but suspected to be an issue with how wasting treatment component is interacting with the better/worse MAM substates, as issue is only present in the age groups that receive treatment (not the 1-5 month age group) and only among the transitions that are affected by treatment + - Ali to pair with engineers to review how treatment component is interacting with better/worse MAM substates + - Model 11.2