4.6 Article

Estimating Time of Infection Using Prior Serological and Individual Information Can Greatly Improve Incidence Estimation of Human and Wildlife Infections

期刊

PLOS COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY
卷 12, 期 5, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004882

关键词

-

资金

  1. University of Antwerp [GOA BOF FFB3567]
  2. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft Focus Program [1596]
  3. Antwerp Study Centre for Infectious Diseases (ASCID)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Diseases of humans and wildlife are typically tracked and studied through incidence, the number of new infections per time unit. Estimating incidence is not without difficulties, as asymptomatic infections, low sampling intervals and low sample sizes can introduce large estimation errors. After infection, biomarkers such as antibodies or pathogens often change predictably over time, and this temporal pattern can contain information about the time since infection that could improve incidence estimation. Antibody level and avidity have been used to estimate time since infection and to recreate incidence, but the errors on these estimates using currently existing methods are generally large. Using a semi-parametric model in a Bayesian framework, we introduce a method that allows the use of multiple sources of information (such as antibody level, pathogen presence in different organs, individual age, season) for estimating individual time since infection. When sufficient background data are available, this method can greatly improve incidence estimation, which we show using are-navirus infection in multimammate mice as a test case. The method performs well, especially compared to the situation in which seroconversion events between sampling sessions are the main data source. The possibility to implement several sources of information allows the use of data that are in many cases already available, which means that existing incidence data can be improved without the need for additional sampling efforts or laboratory assays.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据