Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28846676›Full record

ArticlePLoS computational biology2017

A method of determining where to target surveillance efforts in heterogeneous epidemiological systems.

Alexander J Mastin, Frank van den Bosch, Timothy R Gottwald, Vasthi Alonso Chavez, Stephen R Parnell

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS computational biology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Canine olfactory detection of a vectored phytobacterial pathogen, Liberibacter asiaticus, and integration with disease control.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2020
    Article
  5. Quantifying the hidden costs of imperfect detection for early detection surveillance.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2019
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Alexander J MastinEcosystems and Environment Research Centre, School of Environment and Life Sciences, University of Salford, Greater Manchester, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9536-3378
Frank van den BoschComputational and Systems Biology, Rothamsted Research, Harpenden, Hertfordshire, United Kingdom.
Timothy R GottwaldUSDA Agricultural Research Service, Fort Pierce, Florida, United States of America.
Vasthi Alonso ChavezComputational and Systems Biology, Rothamsted Research, Harpenden, Hertfordshire, United Kingdom.
Stephen R ParnellEcosystems and Environment Research Centre, School of Environment and Life Sciences, University of Salford, Greater Manchester, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2625-4557

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The spread of pathogens into new environments poses a considerable threat to human, animal, and plant health, and by extension, human and animal wellbeing, ecosystem function, and agricultural productivity, worldwide. Early detection through effective surveillance is a key strategy to reduce the risk of their establishment. Whilst it is well established that statistical and economic considerations are of vital importance when planning surveillance efforts, it is also important to consider epidemiological characteristics of the pathogen in question-including heterogeneities within the epidemiological system itself. One of the most pronounced realisations of this heterogeneity is seen in the case of vector-borne pathogens, which spread between 'hosts' and 'vectors'-with each group possessing distinct epidemiological characteristics. As a result, an important question when planning surveillance for emerging vector-borne pathogens is where to place sampling resources in order to detect the pathogen as early as possible. We answer this question by developing a statistical function which describes the probability distributions of the prevalences of infection at first detection in both hosts and vectors. We also show how this method can be adapted in order to maximise the probability of early detection of an emerging pathogen within imposed sample size and/or cost constraints, and demonstrate its application using two simple models of vector-borne citrus pathogens. Under the assumption of a linear cost function, we find that sampling costs are generally minimised when either hosts or vectors, but not both, are sampled.

Indexed as

Disease Transmission, InfectiousDisease VectorsEpidemiological MonitoringModels, BiologicalModels, StatisticalAnimalsComputational BiologyPlant Diseases

Identifiers

PMID28846676
PMCPMC5591013

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC0
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.