ArticlePLoS computational biology2026
Individual and population level uncertainty interact to determine the performance of outbreak surveillance systems.
Article in PLoS computational biology, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOutbreak detection frequently relies on imperfect individual-level case diagnosis. Both outbreaks and cases are discrete events that can be misclassified and uncertainty at the case level may impact the performance of outbreak alert and detection systems. Here, we describe how the performance of outbreak detection depends on individual-level diagnostic test characteristics and population-level epidemiology, and describe settings where imperfect individual-level tests can achieve consistent performance comparable to "perfect" diagnostic tests. METHODOLOGY: We generated a stochastic SEIR model to simulate daily incidence of measles (i.e., true) and non-measles (i.e., noise) febrile rash illness. We modeled non-measles sources as either independent static (Poisson) noise, or dynamical noise consistent with an independent SEIR process (e.g., rubella). Defining outbreak alerts as the exceedance of a threshold by the 7-day rolling average of observed test positives, we optimized the threshold that maximized outbreak detection accuracy across sets of noise structures and magnitudes, diagnostic test accuracy (consistent with either a perfect test, or proposed rapid diagnostic tests), and testing rates.
conclusionsThe optimal threshold for each diagnostic test typically increased monotonically with testing rate. With static noise, outbreak detection with RDT-like and perfect tests achieved accuracies of 90%, with comparable delays to outbreak detection. With dynamical noise, the accuracy of perfect test scenarios was superior to those achieved with RDTs (≈ 90% vs. ≤ 80%). Outbreak detection accuracy declined as dynamical noise increased and leads to permanent alert status with RDT-like tests at very high noise. The performance of an outbreak detection system is highly sensitive to the structure and the magnitude of the background noise. Depending on the epidemiological context, outbreak detection using RDTs can perform as well as perfect tests.
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.