ReviewEmerging microbes & infections2026
Machine learning-enabled wastewater-based surveillance for emerging pathogen detection and monitoring: current applications, challenges, and future prospects.
Review in Emerging microbes & infections, 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
Wastewater-based surveillance (WBS) has become an important public-health tool for tracking community-level circulation of emerging and re-emerging pathogens, but wastewater measurements are not directly interpretable public-health indicators. Signals recovered from sewer systems are shaped by sampling variability, environmental and inter- and intra-laboratory variations, population-dependent bias, and high-dimensional molecular complexity. Machine learning (ML) is increasingly used to extract predictive and decision-relevant information from these data, but the strength of the supporting evidence varies substantially. This narrative review examines how strongly current applications are supported by published evidence. Sources were identified through iterative searches of three literature-search sources updated to June 2026 and classified by role, analytical task, and strength of evidence. To keep the analytical scope consistent, we use a pragmatic four-layer classification: classical statistical models, conventional machine learning, deep learning, and hybrid or mechanistically informed approaches. Applications are reviewed across five analytical tasks: predictive modelling and forecasting, anomaly and fluctuation detection, data harmonization and normalization, high-dimensional interpretation, and integrated decision support. Among 35 sources reporting analytical or modelling work, 25 analyzed SARS-CoV-2 alone; demonstrated early-warning evidence came predominantly from L1 methods, and most target-task combinations remain prospective. Even within SARS-CoV-2 surveillance, reported performance was context-dependent. We examine the data-quality, methodological, and implementation barriers that limit broader application and validation. Future priorities include standardized and collaborative frameworks, multimodal data fusion, mechanistic and digital-twin modelling with explicit uncertainty assessment, and transparent and actionable analytics, with broader surveillance applications constrained by governance and public acceptability.
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.