Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39948149›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Evaluating a novel reproduction number estimation method: a comparative analysis.

Katsuro Anazawa

Erratum issuedAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Katsuro AnazawaDepartment of Natural Environmental Studies, Graduate School of Frontier Sciences, The University of Tokyo, 5-1-5 Kashiwanoha, Kashiwa, Chiba, 277-8563, Japan. anazawa@k.u-tokyo.ac.jp.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This paper presents practical methodologies for determining effective reproduction numbers, R(t), providing valuable insights for researchers and public health officials. It proposes multiple simplified approaches for estimating R(t) of infectious diseases and compares their effectiveness. These approaches include methods based on exponential, fixed (delta), normal, and gamma distributions for the generation time. The exponential and fixed generation time methods offer convenience as they rely solely on the mean generation time and the number of new infections. However, they are sensitive to the variance of the generation time distribution: the exponential method may underestimate R(t) when the variance is small, while the fixed generation time method may overestimate R(t) when the variance is large. The normal distribution method also risks underestimation, depending on the growth rate. In contrast, the gamma distribution method demonstrates greater robustness and accuracy across a variety of scenarios. A key contribution of this work is the consolidated presentation of these estimation methods, along with the novel derivation of an accurate R(t) formula based on the gamma distribution. This research offers practical guidance for selecting the most appropriate R(t) estimation method, emphasizing the importance of accounting for the specific characteristics of the infectious disease's generation time distribution.

Indexed as

Basic Reproduction NumberCommunicable DiseasesHumansEuler–Lotka equationGamma distributionGeneration timeReproduction numberSARS-CoV-2

Identifiers

PMID39948149
PMCPMC11825847

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.