Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39809332›Full record

ReviewJournal of the Royal Society, Interface2025

Random walk models in the life sciences: including births, deaths and local interactions.

Michael J Plank, Matthew J Simpson, Ruth E Baker

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of the Royal Society, Interface, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Michael J PlankSchool of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand.ORCID 0000-0002-7539-3465
Matthew J SimpsonSchool of Mathematical Sciences, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-6254-313X
Ruth E BakerMathematical Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6304-9333

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Random walks and related spatial stochastic models have been used in a range of application areas, including animal and plant ecology, infectious disease epidemiology, developmental biology, wound healing and oncology. Classical random walk models assume that all individuals in a population behave independently, ignoring local physical and biological interactions. This assumption simplifies the mathematical description of the population considerably, enabling continuum-limit descriptions to be derived and used in model analysis and fitting. However, interactions between individuals can have a crucial impact on population-level behaviour. In recent decades, research has increasingly been directed towards models that include interactions, including physical crowding effects and local biological processes such as adhesion, competition, dispersal, predation and adaptive directional bias. In this article, we review the progress that has been made with models of interacting individuals. We aim to provide an overview that is accessible to researchers in application areas, as well as to specialist modellers. We focus particularly on derivation of asymptotically exact or approximate continuum-limit descriptions and simplified deterministic models of mean-field behaviour and resulting spatial patterns. We provide worked examples and illustrative results of selected models. We conclude with a discussion of current areas of focus and future challenges.

Indexed as

Models, BiologicalAnimalsHumansStochastic Processesagent-based modelcontinuum-limit equationlattice-based modellattice-free modelmean-field modelspatial structure

Identifiers

PMID39809332
PMCPMC11732428

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.