Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35509609›Full record

ArticleEcology and evolution2022

Inference for epidemic models with time-varying infection rates: Tracking the dynamics of oak processionary moth in the UK.

Laura E Wadkin, Julia Branson, Andrew Hoppit, Nicholas G Parker, Andrew Golightly, Andrew W Baggaley

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ecology and evolution, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
4.4field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. 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

6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Laura E WadkinSchool of Mathematics, Statistics and Physics Newcastle University Newcastle upon Tyne UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7355-2023
Julia BransonGeoData, Geography and Environmental Science University of Southampton Southampton UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7511-1026
Andrew HoppitForestry Commission England Nobel House London UK.
Nicholas G ParkerSchool of Mathematics, Statistics and Physics Newcastle University Newcastle upon Tyne UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7238-8492
Andrew GolightlySchool of Mathematics, Statistics and Physics Newcastle University Newcastle upon Tyne UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6730-1279
Andrew W BaggaleySchool of Mathematics, Statistics and Physics Newcastle University Newcastle upon Tyne UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6813-2443
Newcastle University · GBDurham University · GBForestry Commission England · GBUniversity of Southampton · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Invasive pests pose a great threat to forest, woodland, and urban tree ecosystems. The oak processionary moth (OPM) is a destructive pest of oak trees, first reported in the UK in 2006. Despite great efforts to contain the outbreak within the original infested area of South-East England, OPM continues to spread.Here, we analyze data consisting of the numbers of OPM nests removed each year from two parks in London between 2013 and 2020. Using a state-of-the-art Bayesian inference scheme, we estimate the parameters for a stochastic compartmental SIR (susceptible, infested, and removed) model with a time-varying infestation rate to describe the spread of OPM.We find that the infestation rate and subsequent basic reproduction number have remained constant since 2013 (with

Indexed as

Bayesian inferenceepidemicsMarkov chain Monte Carlooak processionary mothSIR modelstochastic differential equationsusceptible‐infected‐removed model

Identifiers

PMID35509609
PMCPMC9058805
OpenAlexW4225272214

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.