ArticleProceedings. Biological sciences2017
Evidence of cryptic incidence in childhood diseases.
Article in Proceedings. Biological sciences, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Periodic Characteristics of Hepatitis Virus Infections From 2013 to 2020 and Their Association With Meteorological Factors in Guangdong, China: Surveillance Study.JMIR public health and surveillance · 2023Article
- Temporal dynamic characteristics of human monkeypox epidemic in 2022 around the world under the COVID-19 pandemic background.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
- Changes in Temporal Properties of Notifiable Infectious Disease Epidemics in China During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Population-Based Surveillance Study.JMIR public health and surveillance · 2022Article
- Urban Scaling of Health Outcomes: a Scoping Review.Journal of urban health : bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine · 2022Article
- Oscillatory properties of class C notifiable infectious diseases in China from 2009 to 2021.Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
- Enlightenment on oscillatory properties of 23 class B notifiable infectious diseases in the mainland of China from 2004 to 2020.PloS one · 2021Article
- Estimation and prediction for a mechanistic model of measles transmission using particle filtering and maximum likelihood estimation.Statistics in medicine · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Persistence and extinction are key processes in infectious disease dynamics that, owing to incomplete reporting, are seldom directly observable. For fully immunizing diseases, reporting probabilities can be readily estimated from demographic records and case reports. Yet reporting probabilities are not sufficient to unambiguously reconstruct disease incidence from case reports. Here, we focus on disease presence (i.e. marginal probability of non-zero incidence), which provides an upper bound on the marginal probability of disease extinction. We examine measles and pertussis in pre-vaccine era United States (US) cities, and describe a conserved scaling relationship between population size, reporting probability and observed presence (i.e. non-zero case reports). We use this relationship to estimate disease presence given perfect reporting, and define cryptic presence as the difference between estimated and observed presence. We estimate that, in early twentieth century US cities, pertussis presence was higher than measles presence across a range of population sizes, and that cryptic presence was common in small cities with imperfect reporting. While the methods employed here are specific to fully immunizing diseases, our results suggest that cryptic incidence deserves careful attention, particularly in diseases with low case counts, poor reporting and longer infectious periods.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.