ArticleRisk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis2025
Risk assessment of infection of COVID-19 contacts based on scenario simulation.
Article in Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis, 2025. 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.
- Risk assessment of infection of COVID-19 contacts based on scenario simulation.Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We constructed a rapid infection risk assessment model for contacts of COVID-19. The improved Wells-Riley model was used to estimate the probability of infection for contacts of COVID-19 in the same place and evaluate their risk grades. We used COVID-19 outbreaks that were documented to validate the accuracy of the model. We analyzed the relationship between controllable factors and infection probability and constructed common scenarios to analyze the infection risk of contacts in different scenarios. The model showed the robustness of the fitting (mean relative error = 5.89%, mean absolute error = 2.03%, root mean squared error = 2.03%, R
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.