ReviewJournal of the Royal Society, Interface2025
Random walk models in the life sciences: including births, deaths and local interactions.
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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Combining graphlets and random walks for capturing complex network topology.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Pattern Formation in Agent-Based and PDE Models for Evolutionary Games with Payoff-Driven Motion.Bulletin of mathematical biology · 2026Article
- The Range-Resident Logistic Model: A New Framework to Formalise the Population-Dynamics Consequences of Range Residency.Ecology letters · 2025Article
- Inference and prediction for stochastic models of biological populations undergoing migration and proliferation.Journal of the Royal Society, Interface · 2025Review
- Random walk models in the life sciences: including births, deaths and local interactions.Journal of the Royal Society, Interface · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.