ArticlePLoS computational biology2025
A Bayesian model for repeated cross-sectional epidemic prevalence survey data.
Article in PLoS computational biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Recommendations for the analysis of leading indicators in epidemic surveillance.PLOS digital health · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Epidemic prevalence surveys monitor the spread of an infectious disease by regularly testing representative samples of a population for infection. State-of-the-art Bayesian approaches for analysing epidemic survey data were constructed independently and under pressure during the COVID-19 pandemic. In this paper, we compare two existing approaches (one leveraging Bayesian P-splines and the other approximate Gaussian processes) with a novel approach (leveraging a random walk and fit using sequential Monte Carlo) for smoothing and performing inference on epidemic survey data. We use our simpler approach to investigate the impact of survey design and underlying epidemic dynamics on the quality of estimates. We then incorporate these considerations into the existing approaches and compare all three on simulated data and on real-world data from the SARS-CoV-2 REACT-1 prevalence study in England. All three approaches, once appropriate considerations are made, produce similar estimates of infection prevalence; however, estimates of the growth rate and instantaneous reproduction number are more sensitive to underlying assumptions. Interactive notebooks applying all three approaches are also provided alongside recommendations on hyperparameter selection and other practical guidance, with some cases resulting in orders-of-magnitude faster runtime.
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.