ArticlePloS one2021
Bias-corrected maximum-likelihood estimation of multiplicity of infection and lineage frequencies.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Molecular surveillance of multiplicity of infection, haplotype frequencies, and prevalence in infectious diseases.PLoS computational biology · 2026Article
- Article
- Review of MrsFreqPhase methods: methods designed to estimate statistically malaria parasite multiplicity of infection, relatedness, frequency and phase.Malaria journal · 2024Review
- Article
- Estimating multiplicity of infection, allele frequencies, and prevalences accounting for incomplete data.PloS one · 2024Article
- A maximum-likelihood method to estimate haplotype frequencies and prevalence alongside multiplicity of infection from SNP data.Frontiers in epidemiology · 2022Article
- The many definitions of multiplicity of infection.Frontiers in epidemiology · 2022Article
- Evolutionary genetics of malaria.Frontiers in genetics · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe UN's Sustainable Development Goals are devoted to eradicate a range of infectious diseases to achieve global well-being. These efforts require monitoring disease transmission at a level that differentiates between pathogen variants at the genetic/molecular level. In fact, the advantages of genetic (molecular) measures like multiplicity of infection (MOI) over traditional metrics, e.g., R0, are being increasingly recognized. MOI refers to the presence of multiple pathogen variants within an infection due to multiple infective contacts. Maximum-likelihood (ML) methods have been proposed to derive MOI and pathogen-lineage frequencies from molecular data. However, these methods are biased. METHODS AND
findingsBased on a single molecular marker, we derive a bias-corrected ML estimator for MOI and pathogen-lineage frequencies. We further improve these estimators by heuristical adjustments that compensate shortcomings in the derivation of the bias correction, which implicitly assumes that data lies in the interior of the observational space. The finite sample properties of the different variants of the bias-corrected estimators are investigated by a systematic simulation study. In particular, we investigate the performance of the estimator in terms of bias, variance, and robustness against model violations. The corrections successfully remove bias except for extreme parameters that likely yield uninformative data, which cannot sustain accurate parameter estimation. Heuristic adjustments further improve the bias correction, particularly for small sample sizes. The bias corrections also reduce the estimators' variances, which coincide with the Cramér-Rao lower bound. The estimators are reasonably robust against model violations.
conclusionsApplying bias corrections can substantially improve the quality of MOI estimates, particularly in areas of low as well as areas of high transmission-in both cases estimates tend to be biased. The bias-corrected estimators are (almost) unbiased and their variance coincides with the Cramér-Rao lower bound, suggesting that no further improvements are possible unless additional information is provided. Additional information can be obtained by combining data from several molecular markers, or by including information that allows stratifying the data into heterogeneous groups.
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.