Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42646805›Full record

ReviewTropical medicine and infectious disease2026

Modelling African Swine Fever Transmission and Epidemiology: A Scoping Review of Mechanistic, Statistical, and Machine Learning Approaches.

Kim Dianne B Ligue-Sabio, Yoni Nazarathy, Kien Quoc Do, Luis Furuya-Kanamori, Yusuf A Sucol, Benn Sartorius, Colleen L Lau

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Tropical medicine and infectious disease, 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

7 authors.

Kim Dianne B Ligue-SabioFrazer Institute, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Behavioural Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD 4006, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-9312-1482
Yoni NazarathySchool of Mathematics and Physics, Faculty of Science, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD 4072, Australia.
Kien Quoc DoSchool of Public Health, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Behavioural Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD 4006, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-3197-0969
Luis Furuya-KanamoriFrazer Institute, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Behavioural Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD 4006, Australia.
Yusuf A SucolUPLB Climate and Disaster Risks Studies Center, School of Environmental Science and Management, University of the Philippines Los Baños, Los Baños 4031, Philippines.
Benn SartoriusFrazer Institute, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Behavioural Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD 4006, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-6761-2325
Colleen L LauFrazer Institute, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Behavioural Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD 4006, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-8288-4169

Funding

The University of Queensland
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

African swine fever (ASF) is a viral disease of domestic and wild pigs that has re-emerged as a major transboundary disease. Modelling using mechanistic, statistical, and machine learning (ML) approaches plays a key role in understanding ASF transmission and informing disease control, but the literature remains fragmented. To synthesise global ASF modelling efforts, we systematically reviewed studies applying these three approaches. We examined temporal and geographic trends, modelling objectives, explanatory variables, and model evaluation practices. A total of 151 papers published through 2024 met the inclusion criteria. Mechanistic (54.3%) and statistical (40.4%) approaches predominated, whereas ML (9.3%) was increasingly applied in recent years. Mechanistic models were primarily used to assess control strategies (48.8%) and transmission drivers (41.5%), statistical models to identify risk factors (63.9%) and spatiotemporal spread (32.8%), and ML for environmental suitability modelling (64.3%). Most were published from 2011 (99.3%) and focused on Europe (43.0%) and Asia (26.5%). Model evaluation remained inconsistent, with mechanistic papers frequently lacking model output uncertainty quantification (47.0%) and statistical papers often omitting model adequacy assessment (49.2%) and assumption checking (50.8%). Overall, ASF modelling approaches have developed complementary methodological roles, while geographic underrepresentation, limited representation of some transmission pathways, and inconsistent model evaluation remain important gaps.

Indexed as

disease surveillanceinfectious disease modellingtransboundary animal diseaseuncertainty quantificationveterinary epidemiology

Identifiers

PMID42646805
PMCPMC13517675

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.