ArticleRoyal Society open science2023
Accurately summarizing an outbreak using epidemiological models takes time.
Article in Royal Society open science, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Review of Epidemiological Modeling Studies on Monkeypox.China CDC weekly · 2026Article
- Sensitivity analysis of epidemic forecasting and spreading on networks with probability generating functions.Journal of the Royal Society, Interface · 2026Article
- Improving outbreak forecasts through model augmentation.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025Article
- Stochastic analysis of Ebola infection in small zoonotic niches.Royal Society open science · 2024Article
- Quantum-Like Approaches Unveil the Intrinsic Limits of Predictability in Compartmental Models.Entropy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Recent outbreaks of Mpox and Ebola, and worrying waves of COVID-19, influenza and respiratory syncytial virus, have all led to a sharp increase in the use of epidemiological models to estimate key epidemiological parameters. The feasibility of this estimation task is known as the practical identifiability (PI) problem. Here, we investigate the PI of eight commonly reported statistics of the classic susceptible-infectious-recovered model using a new measure that shows how much a researcher can expect to learn in a model-based Bayesian analysis of prevalence data. Our findings show that the basic reproductive number and final outbreak size are often poorly identified, with learning exceeding that of individual model parameters only in the early stages of an outbreak. The peak intensity, peak timing and initial growth rate are better identified, being in expectation over 20 times more probable having seen the data by the time the underlying outbreak peaks. We then test PI for a variety of true parameter combinations and find that PI is especially problematic in slow-growing or less-severe outbreaks. These results add to the growing body of literature questioning the reliability of inferences from epidemiological models when limited data are available.
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.