ReviewInfectious Disease Modelling2026
Quantitative risk assessment of avian influenza: A scoping review.
Review in Infectious Disease Modelling, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Avian influenza virus (AIV) continues to pose serious risks to animal and public health. Understanding its spread requires integrating ecological, agricultural, and human information. Quantitative models provide a practical way to represent these interactions, evaluate multiple risk factors, and generate spatial insights that support early detection and control. In recent years, advances in data availability and computational methods have increased the use of these models for AIV risk assessment. This review mapped how quantitative modelling has been applied to AIV risk assessment in recent years. Following PRISMA-ScR guidelines, we searched PubMed, Web of Science, and ProQuest for studies published between January 2020 and March 2025, identifying 34 eligible studies. Five model categories were identified: Logistic Regression-based Models, Generalized Linear Models (GLMs), Machine Learning (ML), Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA), and Exploratory Statistical Models. Logistic regression and GLMs quantified associations between outbreaks and risk factors, while ML models focused on predictive mapping. MCDA combined expert weighting with spatial data to generate composite risk maps, and exploratory analyses examined spatial and temporal outbreak patterns. Despite methodological progress, inconsistencies remain in data preparation and validation, limiting comparability across studies. Clearer, harmonized workflows are needed to improve reproducibility and support translation into surveillance tools globally.
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.