Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33328201›Full record

ReviewBMJ global health2020

'Dark matter', second waves and epidemiological modelling.

Karl Friston, Anthony Costello, Deenan Pillay

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMJ global health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 24% of its field
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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. The Free Energy Principle and Free Markets.Entropy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Inferring Trajectories of Psychotic Disorders Using Dynamic Causal Modeling.Computational psychiatry (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2023
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. 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

3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Karl FristonQueen Square Institute of Neurology, University College London, London, UK k.friston@ucl.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7984-8909
Anthony CostelloInstitute of Global Health, University College London, London, UK.
Deenan PillayUniversity College London Faculty of Medical Sciences, London, UK.
Faculty (United Kingdom) · GBQueen Mary University of London · GBUniversity College London · GB

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recent reports using conventional Susceptible, Exposed, Infected and Removed models suggest that the next wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK could overwhelm health services, with fatalities exceeding the first wave. We used Bayesian model comparison to revisit these conclusions, allowing for heterogeneity of exposure, susceptibility and transmission. We used dynamic causal modelling to estimate the evidence for alternative models of daily cases and deaths from the USA, the UK, Brazil, Italy, France, Spain, Mexico, Belgium, Germany and Canada over the period 25 January 2020 to 15 June 2020. These data were used to estimate the proportions of people (i) not exposed to the virus, (ii) not susceptible to infection when exposed and (iii) not infectious when susceptible to infection. Bayesian model comparison furnished overwhelming evidence for heterogeneity of exposure, susceptibility and transmission. Furthermore, both lockdown and the build-up of population immunity contributed to viral transmission in all but one country. Small variations in heterogeneity were sufficient to explain large differences in mortality rates. The best model of UK data predicts a second surge of fatalities will be much less than the first peak. The size of the second wave depends sensitively on the loss of immunity and the efficacy of Find-Test-Trace-Isolate-Support programmes. In summary, accounting for heterogeneity of exposure, susceptibility and transmission suggests that the next wave of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic will be much smaller than conventional models predict, with less economic and health disruption. This heterogeneity means that seroprevalence underestimates effective herd immunity and, crucially, the potential of public health programmes.

Indexed as

Models, TheoreticalPandemicsBayes TheoremCausalityCOVID-19Disease SusceptibilityEpidemiologic StudiesHumansepidemiologymathematical modelling

Identifiers

PMID33328201
PMCPMC7745338
OpenAlexW3110669826

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.