Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40754791›Full record

ArticleAmerican journal of epidemiology2025

Robust uncertainty quantification in popular estimators of the instantaneous reproduction number.

Nicholas Steyn, Kris V Parag

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in American journal of epidemiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Data assimilation for estimating time-varying reproduction numbers.Journal of the Royal Society, Interface · 2025
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
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

2 authors.

Funding

MRC Centre for Global Infectious Disease AnalysisOxford-Radcliffe Scholarship from University College, Oxford, the EP- SRC CDT in Modern Statistics and Statistical Machine Learning (Imperial College London and University of Oxford)
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The instantaneous reproduction number (${R}_t$) is a key measure of the rate of spread of an infectious disease. Correctly quantifying uncertainty in ${R}_t$ estimates is crucial for making well-informed decisions. Popular ${R}_t$ estimators leverage smoothing techniques to distinguish signal from noise. Examples include EpiEstim and EpiFilter, which are both controlled by a "smoothing parameter" that is traditionally selected by users. We demonstrate that the values of these smoothing parameters are unknown, vary markedly with epidemic dynamics, and show that data-driven smoothing is crucial for accurate uncertainty quantification of real-time ${R}_t$ estimates. We derive novel model likelihoods for the smoothing parameters in both EpiEstim and EpiFilter and develop a Bayesian framework to automatically marginalize these parameters when fitting to epidemiological time-series data. This yields marginal posterior predictive distributions which prove integral to rigorous model evaluation. Applying our methods, we find that default parameterizations of these widely used estimators can negatively impact ${R}_t$ inference, delaying detection of epidemic growth, and misrepresenting uncertainty (typically producing overconfident estimates), with implications for public health decision making. Our extensions mitigate these issues, provide a principled approach to uncertainty quantification, improve the robustness of real-time ${R}_t$ inference, and facilitate model comparison using observable quantities.

Indexed as

Basic Reproduction NumberCommunicable DiseasesBayes TheoremEpidemicsHumansModels, StatisticalUncertaintyBayesianCOVID-19Epiestiminfectious diseasereproduction numberrobust estimatorsuncertainty quantification

Identifiers

PMID40754791
PMCPMC12634121

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.