ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2024
Reconciling heterogeneous dengue virus infection risk estimates from different study designs.
Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
19 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Uncovering rates at which susceptible individuals become infected with a pathogen, i.e. the force of infection (FOI), is essential for assessing transmission risk and reconstructing distribution of immunity in a population. For dengue, reconstructing exposure and susceptibility statuses from the measured FOI is of particular significance as prior exposure is a strong risk factor for severe disease. FOI can be measured via many study designs. Longitudinal serology are considered gold standard measurements, as they directly track the transition of seronegative individuals to seropositive due to incident infections (seroincidence). Cross-sectional serology can provide estimates of FOI by contrasting seroprevalence across ages. Age of reported cases can also be used to infer FOI. Agreement of these measurements, however, have not been assessed. Using 26 years of data from cohort studies and hospital-attended cases from Kamphaeng Phet province, Thailand, we found FOI estimates from the three sources to be highly inconsistent. Annual FOI estimates from seroincidence was 2.46 to 4.33-times higher than case-derived FOI. Correlation between seroprevalence-derived and case-derived FOI was moderate (correlation coefficient=0.46) and no systematic bias. Through extensive simulations and theoretical analysis, we show that incongruences between methods can result from failing to account for dengue antibody kinetics, assay noise, and heterogeneity in FOI across ages. Extending standard inference models to include these processes reconciled the FOI and susceptibility estimates. Our results highlight the importance of comparing inferences across multiple data types to uncover additional insights not attainable through a single data type/analysis.
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.