ArticlePeerJ2024
Changes in capture availability due to infection can lead to detectable biases in population-level infectious disease parameters.
Article in PeerJ, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Xenodiagnosis in the wild: A methodology to investigate infectiousness for tick-borne bacteria in a songbird reservoir.Current research in parasitology & vector-borne diseases · 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
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Correctly identifying the strength of selection that parasites impose on hosts is key to predicting epidemiological and evolutionary outcomes of host-parasite interactions. However, behavioral changes due to infection can alter the capture probability of infected hosts and thereby make selection difficult to estimate by standard sampling techniques. Mark-recapture approaches, which allow researchers to determine if some groups in a population are less likely to be captured than others, can be used to identify infection-driven capture biases. If a metric of interest directly compares infected and uninfected populations, calculated detection probabilities for both groups may be useful in identifying bias. Here, we use an individual-based simulation to test whether changes in capture rate due to infection can alter estimates of three key metrics: 1) reduction in the reproductive success of infected parents relative to uninfected parents, 2) the relative risk of infection for susceptible genotypes compared to resistant genotypes, and 3) changes in allele frequencies between generations. We explore the direction and underlying causes of the biases that emerge from these simulations. Finally, we argue that short series of mark-recapture sampling bouts, potentially implemented in under a week, can yield key data on detection bias due to infection while not adding a significantly higher burden to disease ecology studies.
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.