Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36040921›Full record

ArticlePloS one2022

Modelling airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2 at a local scale.

Simon Rahn, Marion Gödel, Gerta Köster, Gesine Hofinger

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Simon RahnDepartment of Computer Science and Mathematics, Munich University of Applied Sciences HM, Munich, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-0842-2406
Marion GödelDepartment of Computer Science and Mathematics, Munich University of Applied Sciences HM, Munich, Germany.
Gerta KösterDepartment of Computer Science and Mathematics, Munich University of Applied Sciences HM, Munich, Germany.
Gesine HofingerTeam Human Factors, Hofinger, Künzer & Mähler PartG, Ludwigsburg, Germany.
Munich University of Applied Sciences · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has changed our lives and still poses a challenge to science. Numerous studies have contributed to a better understanding of the pandemic. In particular, inhalation of aerosolised pathogens has been identified as essential for transmission. This information is crucial to slow the spread, but the individual likelihood of becoming infected in everyday situations remains uncertain. Mathematical models help estimate such risks. In this study, we propose how to model airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2 at a local scale. In this regard, we combine microscopic crowd simulation with a new model for disease transmission. Inspired by compartmental models, we describe virtual persons as infectious or susceptible. Infectious persons exhale pathogens bound to persistent aerosols, whereas susceptible ones absorb pathogens when moving through an aerosol cloud left by the infectious person. The transmission depends on the pathogen load of the aerosol cloud, which changes over time. We propose a 'high risk' benchmark scenario to distinguish critical from non-critical situations. A parameter study of a queue shows that the new model is suitable to evaluate the risk of exposure qualitatively and, thus, enables scientists or decision-makers to better assess the spread of COVID-19 and similar diseases.

Indexed as

COVID-19SARS-CoV-2HumansPandemicsRespiratory Aerosols and Droplets

Identifiers

PMID36040921
PMCPMC9426895
OpenAlexW3211925124

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.