ArticlePloS one2025
Advancing infection profiling under data uncertainty through contagion potential.
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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
During the COVID-19 pandemic, the prevalence of asymptomatic cases challenged the reliability of epidemiological statistics in policymaking. To address this, we introduced contagion potential (CP) as a continuous metric derived from sociodemographic and epidemiological data to quantify the infection risk posed by the asymptomatic within a region. However, CP estimation is hindered by incomplete or biased incidence data, where underreporting and testing constraints make direct estimation infeasible. To overcome this limitation, we employ a hypothesis-testing approach to infer CP from sampled data, allowing for robust estimation despite missing information. Even within the sample collected from spatial contact data, individuals possess partial knowledge of their neighborhoods, as their awareness is restricted to interactions captured by available tracking data. We introduce an adjustment factor that calibrates the sample CPs so that the sample is a reasonable estimate of the population CP. Further complicating estimation, biases in epidemiological and mobility data arise from heterogeneous reporting rates and sampling inconsistencies, which we address through inverse probability weighting to enhance reliability. Using a spatial model for infection spread through social mixing and an optimization framework based on the SIRS epidemic model, we analyze real infection datasets from Italy, Germany, and Austria. Our findings demonstrate that statistical methods can achieve high-confidence CP estimates while accounting for variations in sample size, confidence level, mobility models, and viral strains. By assessing the effects of bias, social mixing, and sampling frequency, we propose statistical corrections to improve CP prediction accuracy. Finally, we discuss how reliable CP estimates can inform outbreak mitigation strategies despite the inherent uncertainties in epidemiological data.
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.