Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 44 references

Inference of epidemic networks: the effect of different data types

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Inferred outbreak trees shift with the type of surveillance data available, not just with the outbreak itself.

desk verdict A useful but flawed comparison of data types for transmission-tree inference; the central claim is plausible but rests on an unnormalized pseudo-likelihood that needs fixing. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.01871 v1 pith:Q4SVQJCC submitted 2025-09-02 physics.comp-ph cond-mat.stat-mechphysics.data-anphysics.soc-phstat.AP

Oscar Fajardo-Fontiveros , Carl J. E. Suster , Eduardo G. Altmann This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.comp-phcond-mat.stat-mechphysics.data-anphysics.soc-phstat.AP MSC 92D3062F1560J22
keywords TransmissiontreeinferenceEpidemicnetworksMarkovChainMonteCarloGenomicepidemiologyLocationmetadataUnsampledhostsCOVID-19surveillanceBayesianposteriorsampling
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper sets out to show that the transmission trees inferred from an outbreak are not determined by the outbreak alone; they depend on which types of data are collected. The authors build a posterior distribution over transmission trees by multiplying five generative components—infection timing, sampling, offspring counts, genetic distance, and location proximity—and sample from it with a tailored Metropolis-Hastings Monte Carlo method. Applied to a Delta-wave COVID-19 dataset from New South Wales, the inferred number of unsampled hosts falls from 17.55 when only sampling times are used to 14.28 when genetic distances are added, and rises to 25.68 when location data are added; both metadata also narrow the inferred degree distribution while leaving the Wiener index unchanged. The significance of the claim is practical: judgments about hidden transmission and outbreak containment depend on which data a surveillance system happened to collect.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the posterior P(T|D) in Eq. (8): a product over hosts of five conditional models—sampling (gamma-distributed detection delay), infection (gamma-distributed generation interval), offspring (negative binomial), genetic (Poisson in pairwise SNP distance against the closest non-downstream sampled host), and location (same-location advantage decaying with time)—times a constant prior, normalized by the evidence. The MCMC sampler moves through tree space with three proposals: time-shift of infection times, rewiring between chain and offspring topologies, and addition or removal of an unsampled host. The proposal ratios in Eqs. (10)-(12) keep the chain ergodic and reversi

What would settle it

Simulate an outbreak with a known transmission tree, known mutation process, and known movement process; run the same MCMC with each data-type combination; check whether genetic data still lowers and location data still raises the estimated N_U when the likelihood is computed against the true infector rather than the closest non-downstream sampled host. A more direct variant: on the NSW data, recompute the genetic factor using distances to arbitrary sampled hosts instead of the closest non-downstream host; if N_U moves substantially, the heuristic—not the data—drives the reported effect.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that network properties important for outbreak management depend sensitively on the type of data used in the inference. Concretely, on 49 sampled COVID-19 cases from the early Delta wave in NSW, the estimated number of unsampled hosts N_U moves from a posterior-mean 17.55 with sampling dates alone to 14.28 when pairwise genetic distances are included and to 25.68 when location information is included, with 80% credible intervals [9,20] and [20,32] respectively; simultaneous inclusion of both metadata types narrows the inferred degree distribution but leaves the Wiener index essentially unchanged. The authors support this by validating an MCMC sampler on small synthetic p

Load-bearing premise

The genetic and location likelihoods are computed against the closest sampled host that is not downstream of the node rather than against the true infector, and the product of those pairwise pseudo-likelihoods is assumed to behave like a real generative model of sequence evolution and movement; if that heuristic fails, the reported data-type dependence is an artifact of the pseudo-likelihood.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Estimates of hidden, unsampled infections are conditional on data type; estimates of N_U should be reported together with the metadata that entered the inference.
  • Adding genomic or location metadata narrows the distribution of plausible trees, so the same dataset yields less spread in inferred degree statistics.
  • The Wiener index appears insensitive to metadata, making it a candidate tree summary that may transfer across data regimes.
  • Because only pairwise distances are needed, the method can simulate hypothetical data-availability scenarios before sequencing or location data exist.
  • The framework is portable to other directly transmitted viruses whose mutation and serial intervals are on comparable timescales.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The sign of the N_U shift (genetic lowers, location raises) may be specific to this dataset's cluster structure; the generalizable lesson is the sensitivity itself, which deserves replication on other outbreaks before guiding policy.
  • If the heuristic genetic and location likelihoods are valid, the approach becomes a surveillance-design calculator: one could choose which data types to fund by minimizing posterior variance of management-relevant statistics rather than maximizing point estimates.
  • A direct test would compare inferred parent-child links against known close-contact or household links in a contact-traced dataset, asking whether genetic or location metadata recovers true infectors more often.
  • The Wiener-index invariance suggests average pair distances might be credibly compared across studies that used different data, while N_U and degree statistics should not be.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a generative model and MCMC sampler to infer transmission trees from sampling times, genetic distances, and locations, and applies it to NSW COVID-19 data. The central claim is that network properties such as the number of unsampled hosts depend sensitively on which data types are used.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper provides a practical tool for designing surveillance strategies. The authors provide code and data, and the MCMC convergence checks against analytically computed probabilities in a small synthetic setting are a strength. However, the validity of the posterior target is undermined by pseudo-likelihood factors that are not properly normalized, so the data-type dependence may be an artifact.

major comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (6), Sec. III.D] The genetic likelihood P_genetic(j'→i') = μΔt e^{-μΔt d} is not a valid probability mass function over SNP count d. Summing over d≥0 gives μΔt/(1-e^{-μΔt}) ≠ 1, and the factorial term of a Poisson is missing. If d is treated as continuous, it is an exponential density, not a probability. The normalization depends on Δt, hence on the tree, so the Metropolis-Hastings ratio in Eq. (9) does not sample from the stated posterior in Eq. (8). Since the comparison of NU across data types is the paper's central claim, this is a load-bearing issue.
  2. [Eq. (7), Sec. III.E] The location factor P_location = A if same location, and A(1-e^{-Δt/τ}) otherwise. The constant A is said to be 'fixed by normalization' but no normalization is specified. The factor does not sum to a constant over the binary outcome space; its normalization would depend on Δt and on the tree structure. Consequently, the posterior P(T|D) is not a well-defined probability distribution, and relative tree probabilities are not meaningful.
  3. [Secs. III.D, III.E, Eq. (8)] The genetic and location factors are computed with respect to the closest sampled host that is not downstream of i, rather than the actual infector. These are heuristic pairwise-distance pseudo-likelihoods, not derived from a generative model of sequence evolution or host movement. The MCMC validation in Sec. IV.C computes 'theoretical' probabilities by integrating Eq. (8) numerically, but since Eq. (8) contains the same unnormalized pseudo-likelihoods, the validation only confirms that the sampler targets the stated (incorrect) density, not that the density is a correct posterior. The central claim about sensitivity to data type therefore rests on an unvalidated target distribution.
  4. [Conclusions, last paragraph] The paper reports 'NU = 17.55 – with 80% confidence interval CI 80% = [5, 14]' when only sampling time is used. A point estimate cannot lie outside its own 80% CI. This indicates a computational or reporting error in the estimation of NU or the CI. This is a concrete internal inconsistency that must be corrected.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (10)] The symbol τ is reused: in Eq. (10) it denotes a minimum time between sampling and infection times, while in Eq. (7) it is the location-model time scale. Use different symbols to avoid confusion.
  2. [Sec. V.A / Fig. 5 caption] The text states NS = 49 cases, but the caption of Fig. 5 says 'NS = 50 sampled hosts'. Please reconcile.
  3. [Eq. (12)] The piecewise definition of the add/remove proposal ratio is difficult to parse due to missing braces in the displayed formula. Please clarify the notation and the factors involving (ki choose ku).
  4. [Sec. III.D, Eq. (5)] The definition of Δt_mutation and the host h ('the first host with no genetic information infected by j′ that is a predecessor of i′') is ambiguous. A clearer formal definition is needed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central data-type-dependence claim is an MCMC output, not a fitted constant.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained in the relevant sense. The posterior in Eq. (8) is defined by the product of the five model components in Eqs. (2)-(7), and all parameters are fixed from external COVID-19 literature in Appendix A, not fitted to the NSW data or to the reported NU values. The reported NU values (17.55, 14.28, 25.68) and other tree statistics are outputs of the MCMC sampling, so the central claim does not reduce to a fitted parameter or to a self-citation. The synthetic validation in Sec. IV.C compares MCMC frequencies to numerical integration of the same target distribution Eq. (8); this is a self-consistency check of the sampler rather than an independent validation of the model, but it is not circular because the sampler's target is explicitly the model posterior. The only self-citations ([6], [7], [36], and the coauthored data source [27]) appear in contextual, code, or data roles and are not load-bearing for the main argument. The most serious concern is a modeling/correctness issue: Eq. (6) is not a normalized probability over SNP counts and Eq. (7)'s normalization constant A is left unspecified, so the direction and magnitude of the data-type effect could be an artifact of the unnormalized pseudo-likelihood. That is a legitimate correctness limitation, but it is not circular: no predicted quantity is equivalent to its input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central inference rests on a set of parameters chosen from COVID-19 literature rather than estimated from the outbreak, and on a heuristic treatment of genetic and location information. The model introduces no physically new entities; unsampled hosts and transmission trees are latent variables of the inference.

free parameters (7)
  • pi = 0.6 (1-pi=0.4 asymptomatic)
    Sampling probability fixed from reported asymptomatic proportion (Appendix A).
  • kappa_sampling, theta_sampling = 5.316, 1.158
    Gamma parameters for sampling time chosen so the peak is at a 5-day incubation period and 99% are tested within 14 days.
  • kappa_inf, theta_inf = 5.7, 1.06
    Gamma parameters for infectiousness chosen so peak infectiousness is around 4-5 days.
  • r_offspring, p_offspring = 6, 0.71
    Negative binomial parameters chosen so the mean is R0=2.7 and 50% of hosts infect 1-5 others.
  • mu = 0.1065 per day
    Substitution rate fixed from COVID-19 literature for the genetic model.
  • tau = 14 days
    Location model time scale set to the infectious period.
  • A = unknown, described as fixed by normalization
    Location model probability for same-location infection; the normalization condition is not specified.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Metropolis-Hastings proposal set is reversible and ergodic over all finite transmission trees
    Invoked in Sec. IV.B; reversibility is checked for each proposal, but ergodicity over the unbounded space of trees with variable numbers of unsampled hosts is asserted without proof.
  • domain assumption The posterior P(T|D) is proper despite a constant prior over a variable-size tree space
    Sec. IV.A sets P(T) constant in Eq. (8); no normalization over the unbounded number of unsampled hosts is provided.
  • ad hoc to paper Genetic and location likelihoods can be based on the closest non-downstream sampled host rather than the actual infector
    Introduced in Sec. III.D/E; this heuristic is not derived from a generative model of sequence evolution or movement.
  • domain assumption All positive detections are true infections and transmission is host-to-host with no background community transmission
    Stated in the Introduction and Conclusions; acknowledged as a limitation.
  • domain assumption COVID-19 epidemiological parameters fixed in Appendix A apply to the NSW subset
    pi, gamma parameters, R0, mu, and tau are taken from literature; parameter uncertainty is not propagated into the tree estimates.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Inference of epidemic networks: the effect of different data types." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Q4SVQJCC

@misc{pith2026250901871,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Inference of epidemic networks: the effect of different data types},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Q4SVQJCC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.01871}
}
read the original abstract

We investigate how the properties of epidemic networks change depending on the availability of different types of data on a disease outbreak. This is achieved by introducing mathematical and computational methods that estimate the probability of transmission trees by combining generative models that jointly determine the number of infected hosts, the probability of infection between them depending on location and genetic information, and their time of infection and sampling. We introduce a suitable Markov Chain Monte Carlo method that we show to sample trees according to their probability. Statistics performed over the sampled trees lead to probabilistic estimations of network properties and other quantities of interest, such as the number of unobserved hosts and the depth of the infection tree. We confirm the validity of our approach by comparing the numerical results with analytically solvable examples. Finally, we apply our methodology to data from COVID-19 in Australia. We find that network properties that are important for the management of the outbreak depend sensitively on the type of data used in the inference.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.01871 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Diverse information about a disease outbreak (top) can be combined to obtain an epidemic network (bottom), which [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Transmission tree [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Proposals used in our Monte Carlo sampler. At each Markov step [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Convergence of the MCMC sampler to the theoretical results in the synthetic data. Each plot shows the ratio of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Equilibration of the MCMC in the COVID-19 data. (a) Negative log-posterior [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Examples of sampled networks obtained using different datasets [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Estimation of quantities of interest computed over plausible transmission trees. (a) Probability of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Dependence of transmission trees on the data type [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Epidemic processes in complex networks

    Pastor-Satorras R, Castellano C, Van Mieghem P, Vespignani A. Epidemic processes in complex networks. Rev Mod Phys. 2015; 87:925–979

    work page 2015

  2. [2]

    Coevolution spreading in complex networks

    Wang W, Liu QH, Liang J, Hu Y, Zhou T. Coevolution spreading in complex networks. Physics Reports. 2019; 820:1–51

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    Statistical inference links data and theory in network science

    Peel L, Peixoto TP, De Domenico M. Statistical inference links data and theory in network science. Nature Communications. 2022; 13(1):6794

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    Structure and inference in annotated networks

    Newman MEJ, Clauset A. Structure and inference in annotated networks. Nat Comm. 2016; 7:11863

    work page 2016

  5. [5]

    Network Structure, Metadata, and the Prediction of Missing Nodes and Annotations

    Hric D, Peixoto TP, Fortunato S. Network Structure, Metadata, and the Prediction of Missing Nodes and Annotations. Phys Rev X. 2016; 6(3):31038

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    Multilayer networks for text analysis with multiple data types

    Hyland CC, Tao Y, Azizi L, Gerlach M, Peixoto TP, Altmann EG. Multilayer networks for text analysis with multiple data types. EPJ Data Science. 2021; 10(1):1–16

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    Node Metadata Can Produce Predictability Crossovers in Network Inference Problems

    Fajardo-Fontiveros O, Guimer` a R, Sales-Pardo M. Node Metadata Can Produce Predictability Crossovers in Network Inference Problems. Physical Review X. 2022; 12(1):011010

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    Active discovery of network roles for predicting the classes of network nodes

    Peel L. Active discovery of network roles for predicting the classes of network nodes. Journal of Complex Networks. 2014; 3(3):431–449

    work page 2014

Show all 44 references
  1. [9]

    The role of pathogen genomics in assessing disease transmission

    Sintchenko V, Holmes EC. The role of pathogen genomics in assessing disease transmission. BMJ. 2015; 350

    2015

  2. [10]

    Genomic Analysis of Viral Outbreaks

    Wohl S, Schaffner SF, Sabeti PC. Genomic Analysis of Viral Outbreaks. Annual Review of Virology. 2016; 3(Volume 3, 2016):173–195

    2016

  3. [11]

    Back-projection improves inference from sparsely sampled genomic surveillance data bioRxiv [Preprint]

    Finney EE, Lee B, Ahmed SF, Sohail MS, Quadeer AA, McKay MR, et al.. Back-projection improves inference from sparsely sampled genomic surveillance data bioRxiv [Preprint]. 2025; 2025.06.29.662219

    2025

  4. [12]

    Viral Phylodynamics

    Volz EM, Koelle K, Bedford T. Viral Phylodynamics. PLOS Computational Biology. 2013; 9(3):e1002947

    2013

  5. [13]

    Epidemiological inference from pathogen genomes: A review of phylodynamic models and applications

    Featherstone LA, Zhang JM, Vaughan TG, Duchene S. Epidemiological inference from pathogen genomes: A review of phylodynamic models and applications. Virus Evolution. 2022; 8(1)

    2022

  6. [14]

    Unravelling transmission trees of infectious diseases by combining genetic and epidemiological data

    Ypma RJF, Bataille AMA, Stegeman A, Koch G, Wallinga J, van Ballegooijen WM. Unravelling transmission trees of infectious diseases by combining genetic and epidemiological data. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 2012; 279(1728):444–450

    2012

  7. [15]

    Genetic Data Provide Evidence for Wind- Mediated Transmission of Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza

    Ypma RJF, Jonges M, Bataille A, Stegeman A, Koch G, Van Boven M, et al. Genetic Data Provide Evidence for Wind- Mediated Transmission of Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza. The Journal of Infectious Diseases. 2013; 207(5):730–735

    2013

  8. [16]

    Inference of person-to-person transmission of COVID-19 reveals hidden super-spreading events during the early outbreak phase

    Wang L, Didelot X, Yang J, Wong G, Shi Y, Liu W, et al. Inference of person-to-person transmission of COVID-19 reveals hidden super-spreading events during the early outbreak phase. Nature Communications. 2020; 11(1):1–6

    2020

  9. [17]

    Relating phylogenetic trees to transmission trees of infectious disease outbreaks

    Ypma RJF, van Ballegooijen WM, Wallinga J. Relating phylogenetic trees to transmission trees of infectious disease outbreaks. Genetics. 2013; 195(3):1055–1062

    2013

  10. [18]

    Bayesian Reconstruction of Disease Outbreaks by Combining Epidemiologic and Genomic Data

    Jombart T, Cori A, Didelot X, Cauchemez S, Fraser C, Ferguson N. Bayesian Reconstruction of Disease Outbreaks by Combining Epidemiologic and Genomic Data. PLOS Computational Biology. 2014; 10(1):e1003457

    2014

  11. [19]

    Incorporating epidemiological data into the genomic analysis of partially sampled infectious disease outbreaks

    Carson J, Keeling M, Ribeca P, Didelot X. Incorporating epidemiological data into the genomic analysis of partially sampled infectious disease outbreaks. Molecular Biology and Evolution. 2025; 42(4):msaf083

    2025

  12. [20]

    Phylodynamic inference of the contribution of transmission routes in infectious disease outbreaks medRxiv [Preprint]

    Van der Roest BR, Klinkenberg D, Fischer EAJ, Bootsma MCJ, Kretzschmar MEE. Phylodynamic inference of the contribution of transmission routes in infectious disease outbreaks medRxiv [Preprint]. 2025; 2025.06.17.25329759

    2025

  13. [21]

    Inference of epidemic dynamics in the COVID-19 era and beyond

    Cori A, Kucharski A. Inference of epidemic dynamics in the COVID-19 era and beyond. Epidemics. 2024; 48:10078

    2024

  14. [22]

    Global disparities in SARS-CoV-2 genomic surveillance

    Brito AF, Semenova E, Dudas G, Hassler GW, Kalinich CC, Kraemer MUG, et al. Global disparities in SARS-CoV-2 genomic surveillance. Nature Communications 2022 13:1. 2022; 13(1):1–13

    2022

  15. [23]

    Guidance for representative and targeted genomic SARS-CoV-2 monitoring Key messages Guidance for representative and targeted genomic SARS-CoV-2 monitoring

    European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control . Guidance for representative and targeted genomic SARS-CoV-2 monitoring Key messages Guidance for representative and targeted genomic SARS-CoV-2 monitoring. 2021

    2021

  16. [24]

    Sample size calculations for pathogen variant surveillance in the presence of biological and systematic biases

    Wohl S, Lee EC, DiPrete BL, Lessler J. Sample size calculations for pathogen variant surveillance in the presence of biological and systematic biases. Cell Reports Medicine. 2023; 4(5):101022

    2023

  17. [25]

    SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic testing rates determine the sensitivity of genomic surveillance programs

    Han AX, Toporowski A, Sacks JA, Perkins MD, Briand S, van Kerkhove M, et al. SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic testing rates determine the sensitivity of genomic surveillance programs. Nature Genetics 2023 55:1. 2023; 55(1):26–33

    2023

  18. [26]

    Optimizing genomic sampling for demographic and epidemiological inference with Markov decision processes

    Rasmussen DA, Bursell MG, Burkhart F. Optimizing genomic sampling for demographic and epidemiological inference with Markov decision processes. bioRxiv [Preprint]. 2025; 2025.06.30.662264

    2025

  19. [27]

    Guiding the design of SARS-CoV-2 genomic surveillance by estimating the resolution of outbreak detection

    Suster CJE, Arnott A, Blackwell G, Gall M, Draper J, Martinez E, et al. Guiding the design of SARS-CoV-2 genomic surveillance by estimating the resolution of outbreak detection. Frontiers in Public Health. 2022; 10:1004201

    2022

  20. [28]

    Genomic infectious disease epidemiology in partially sampled and ongoing outbreaks

    Didelot X, Fraser C, Gardy J, Colijn C, Malik H. Genomic infectious disease epidemiology in partially sampled and ongoing outbreaks. Molecular Biology and Evolution. 2017; 34(4):997–1007

    2017

  21. [29]

    Handbook of Monte Carlo methods

    Kroese DP, Taimre T, Botev ZI. Handbook of Monte Carlo methods. John Wiley & Sons; 2013

    2013

  22. [30]

    Persistent SARS-CoV-2 infection: significance and implications

    Machkovech HM, Hahn AM, Garonzik Wang J, Grubaugh ND, Halfmann PJ, Johnson MC, et al. Persistent SARS-CoV-2 infection: significance and implications. The Lancet Infectious Diseases. 2024; 24(7):e453–e462

    2024

  23. [31]

    Bayesian inference of infectious disease transmission from whole-genome sequence data

    Didelot X, Gardy J, Colijn C. Bayesian inference of infectious disease transmission from whole-genome sequence data. 15 Molecular biology and evolution. 2014; 31(7):1869–1879

    2014

  24. [32]

    Sars-cov-2 (Covid-19) by the numbers

    Bar-On YM, Flamholz A, Phillips R, Milo R. Sars-cov-2 (Covid-19) by the numbers. eLife. 2020; 9:e57309

    2020

  25. [33]

    SARS-CoV-2 viral load and shedding kinetics

    Puhach O, Meyer B, Eckerle I. SARS-CoV-2 viral load and shedding kinetics. Nature Reviews Microbiology. 2022; 21:147-161

    2022

  26. [34]

    Incubation period of COVID-19: a rapid systematic review and meta-analysis of observational research

    Mcaloon C, Collins A, Hunt K, Barber A, Byrne A W, Butler F, et al. Incubation period of COVID-19: a rapid systematic review and meta-analysis of observational research. BMJ Open. 2020; 10:e039652

    2020

  27. [35]

    Estimating the generation interval for coronavirus disease (COVID-19) based on symptom onset data, March 2020

    Ganyani T, Kremer C, Chen D, Torneri A, Faes C, Wallinga J, et al. Estimating the generation interval for coronavirus disease (COVID-19) based on symptom onset data, March 2020. Euro Surveill. 2020; 17(25):2000257

    2020

  28. [36]

    Data and Python code used in this paper

    Fajardo-Fontiveros O, Suster CJE, Altmann EG. Data and Python code used in this paper. Available from: https: //github.com/oscarcapote/transmission_models (repository) and https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17029983 (per- manent link)

    doi

  29. [37]

    Documenting elimination of co-circulating COVID-19 clusters using genomics in New South Wales, Australia

    Arnott A, Draper J, Rockett RJ, Lam C, Sadsad R, Gall M, et al. Documenting elimination of co-circulating COVID-19 clusters using genomics in New South Wales, Australia. BMC Research Notes. 2021; 14(1):1–4

    2021

  30. [38]

    Bondi and beyond

    Capon A, Sheppeard V, Gonzalez N, Draper J, Zhu A, Browne M, et al. Bondi and beyond. Lessons from three waves of COVID-19 from 2020 - September 2021, Volume 31, Issue 3 — PHRP. Public Health Res Pract. 2021; 31(3)

    2020

  31. [39]

    Australia’s Response to COVID-19

    Stobart A, Duckett S. Australia’s Response to COVID-19. Health Economics, Policy and Law. 2022; 17(1):95–106

    2022

  32. [40]

    The Structural Virality of Online Diffusion

    Goel S, Anderson A, Hofman J, Watts DJ. The Structural Virality of Online Diffusion. Management Science. 2015; 62(1):180–196

    2015

  33. [41]

    Underdetected dispersal and extensive local transmission drove the 2022 mpox epidemic

    Paredes MI, Ahmed N, Figgins M, Colizza V, Lemey P, McCrone JT, et al. Underdetected dispersal and extensive local transmission drove the 2022 mpox epidemic. Cell. 2024; 187(6):1374–1386.e13

    2022

  34. [42]

    Bayesian Phylogeography Finds Its Roots

    Lemey P, Rambaut A, Drummond AJ, Suchard MA. Bayesian Phylogeography Finds Its Roots. PLoS Computational Biology. 2009; 5(9):e1000520

    2009

  35. [43]

    On the origin and evolution of SARS-CoV-2

    Singh D, Yi SV. On the origin and evolution of SARS-CoV-2. Experimental & Molecular Medicine. 2021; 53(4):537–547

    2021

  36. [44]

    Tracking the COVID-19 pandemic in Australia using genomics

    Seemann T, Lane CR, Sherry NL, Duchene S, Gon¸ calves da Silva A, Caly L, et al. Tracking the COVID-19 pandemic in Australia using genomics. Nature Communications. 2020; 11(1):1–9

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.