ArticlePloS one2025
A generalised catalytic model to assess changes in risk for multiple reinfections with SARS-CoV-2.
Article in PloS one, 2025. 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
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
backgroundMonitoring trends in multiple infections with SARS-CoV-2, following several pandemic waves, provides insight into the biological characteristics of new variants, but also necessitates methods to understand the risk of multiple reinfections.
objectivesWe generalised a catalytic model designed to detect increases in the risk of SARS-CoV-2 reinfection, to assess the population-level risk of multiple reinfections.
methodsThe catalytic model assumes the risk of reinfection is proportional to observed infections and uses a Bayesian approach to fit model parameters to the number of nth infections among individuals that occur at least 90 days after a previous infection. Using a posterior draw from the fitted model parameters, a 95% projection interval of daily nth infections is calculated under the assumption of a constant nth infection hazard coefficient. An additional model parameter was incorporated for the increased reinfection risk detected during the Omicron wave. The generalised model's performance was then assessed using simulation-based validation. KEY
findingsNo additional increase in the risk of third infection was detected after the increase detected during the Omicron wave. Using simulation-based validation, we show that the model can successfully detect increases in the risk of third infections under different scenarios. LIMITATIONS: Even though the generalised model is intended to detect the risk of nth infections, it is validated specifically for third infections, with its applicability for four or more infections being unconfirmed. Furthermore, the method's sensitivity to low counts of nth infections, limits application in settings with small epidemics, limited testing coverage or early in an outbreak.
conclusionsThe catalytic model was successfully adapted to detect increases in the risk of nth infections, enhancing our capacity to identify future changes in the risk of nth infections by SARS-CoV-2 or other similar pathogens.
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.