SynthesisPathogens (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Mechanistic Models of Virus-Bacteria Co-Infections in Humans: A Systematic Review of Methods and Assumptions.
Synthesis in Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Epidemiology, bacterial coinfection risk factors, and inflammatory markers in children with RSV, AdV, and hMPV pneumonia in Zunyi, China.BMC infectious diseases · 2026Article
- Infection History Shapes Co-Epidemic Dynamics: A Transmission Source-Pathway Decomposition for COVID-19 and Influenza.Microorganisms · 2026Article
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
backgroundViral-bacterial co-infections can amplify disease severity through complex biological mechanisms. Mathematical models are critical tools for understanding these threats, but it is unclear how well they capture the underlying biology. This systematic review addresses a central question: to what extent does the current generation of models mechanistically represent co-infections, or do the mathematical assumptions underlying these models adequately represent the known biological mechanisms?
methodsFollowing PRISMA guidelines, we systematically reviewed the literature on mechanistic models of human virus-bacteria co-infections. A systematic search of articles on the scientific literature repositories PubMed, Scopus, and Dimensions was conducted and data on study objectives, model structure, assumptions about biological interactions (e.g., susceptibility, mortality), control measures (if evaluated), and the empirical sources used for key parameters were extracted.
resultsWe identified 72 studies for inclusion in this analysis. The reviewed models are consistently built on the established premise that co-infection alters disease severity and host susceptibility. However, we found they incorporate these dynamics primarily through high-level mathematical shortcuts, such as applying static "multiplicative factors" to transmission or progression rates. Our quantitative analysis also revealed questionable approaches; for example, 79% (57) of these studies relied on non-empirical sources (assumed or borrowed values) for parameter values including interaction parameters (e.g., increased susceptibility to a secondary pathogen following primary infection, or elevated mortality rates in co-infected individuals).
conclusionsAn apparently unjustified practice exists in co-infection modeling, where complex biological processes are simplified to fixed numerical assumptions, often without empirical support. This practice limits the predictive reliability of current models. We identify an urgent need for data-driven parameterization and interdisciplinary collaboration to bridge the gap between biological complexity and modeling practice, thereby enhancing the public health relevance of co-infection modeling.
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.