  Traditional disease transmission models assume that the infectious period is
exponentially distributed with a recovery rate fixed in time and across
individuals. This assumption provides analytical and computational advantages,
however it is often unrealistic. Efforts in modeling non-exponentially
distributed infectious periods are either limited to special cases or lead to
unsolvable models. Also, the link between empirical data (infectious period
distribution) and the modeling needs (corresponding recovery rates) lacks a
clear understanding. Here we introduce a mapping of an arbitrary distribution
of infectious periods into a distribution of recovery rates. We show that the
same infectious period distribution at the population level can be reproduced
by two modeling schemes -- host-based and population-based -- depending on the
individual response to the infection, and aggregated empirical data cannot
easily discriminate the correct scheme. Besides being conceptually different,
the two schemes also lead to different epidemic trajectories. Although sharing
the same behavior close to the disease-free equilibrium, the host-based scheme
deviates from the expected epidemic when reaching the endemic equilibrium of an
SIS transmission model, while the population-based scheme turns out to be
equivalent to assuming a homogeneous recovery rate. We show this through
analytical computations and stochastic epidemic simulations on a contact
network, using both generative network models and empirical contact data. It is
therefore possible to reproduce heterogeneous infectious periods in
network-based transmission models, however the resulting prevalence is
sensitive to the modeling choice for the interpretation of the empirically
collected data on infection duration. In absence of higher resolution data,
studies should acknowledge such deviations in the epidemic predictions.
