Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42464558›Full record

ArticleRisk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis2026

The Wells-Riley Model Revisited II: Parameter Uncertainty and Population Heterogeneity.

Marcus Marshall, Alexander J Edwards, Dominique Pinnell, Marco-Felipe King, Catherine J Noakes, Nazif Elaldi, Grant Lythe, Martín López-García

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Marcus MarshallSchool of Mathematics, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0002-7011-177X
Alexander J EdwardsSchool of Chemistry, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Dominique PinnellSchool of Mathematics, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Marco-Felipe KingSchool of Civil Engineering, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Catherine J NoakesSchool of Civil Engineering, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Nazif ElaldiDepartment of İnfectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology, Sivas Cumhuriyet University, Sivas, Turkey.
Grant LytheSchool of Mathematics, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Martín López-GarcíaSchool of Mathematics, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.

Funding

BBSRC-funded project EPICVIR BB/X020045/1Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/W010755/1European Regional Development Fund, European UnionMinisterio de Ciencia, Innovación y Universidades PID2024-158823NB-I00University of Leeds
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In this work, we revisit the Wells-Riley model, which has been widely used to estimate airborne infection risk in indoor settings. In particular, we consider a probabilistic (i.e., "stochastic") framework of the Wells-Riley model which allows one to quantify infection risk in terms of the per-capita probability of infection for each susceptible individual, as well as the probability distribution of the number of infections (here referred to as "exposures") during the indoor interaction. Directly extending the work by Edwards, King, Noakes et al. (2024), we consider here the situation where the main parameters in the Wells-Riley model (namely, the quanta generation rate

Indexed as

Models, TheoreticalHumansProbabilityRisk AssessmentStochastic ProcessesUncertaintyairborne transmissioninfection riskparameter uncertaintyWells–Riley model

Identifiers

PMID42464558
PMCPMC13376729

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.