Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 180

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The construction and analysis of epidemic trees with reference to the 2001 UK foot–and–mouth outbreak

Open access
Haydon, D. T., Chase–Topping, M., Shaw, D. J., Matthews, L., Friar, J. K., Wilesmith, J., Woolhouse, M. E. J.·2003·Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences

Abstract

The case-reproduction ratio for the spread of an infectious disease is a critically important concept for understanding dynamics of epidemics and for evaluating impact of control measures on spread of infection. Reliable estimation of this ratio is a problem central to epidemiology and is most often accomplished by fitting dynamic models to data and estimating combinations of parameters that equate to the case-reproduction ratio. Here, we develop a novel parameter-free method that permits direct estimation of the history of transmission events recoverable from detailed observation of a particular epidemic. From these reconstructed 'epidemic trees', case-reproduction ratios can be estimated directly. We develop a bootstrap algorithm that generates percentile intervals for these estimates that shows the procedure to be both precise and robust to possible uncertainties in the historical reconstruction. Identifying and 'pruning' branches from these trees whose occurrence might have been prevented by implementation of more stringent control measures permits estimation of the possible efficacy of these alternative measures. Examination of the cladistic structure of these trees as a function of the distance of each case from its infection source reveals useful insights about the relationship between long-distance transmission events and epidemic size. We demonstrate the utility of these methods by applying them to data from the 2001 foot-and-mouth disease outbreak in the UK.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1098/rspb.2002.2191

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 180

Metadata

Authors
Haydon, D. T., Chase–Topping, M., Shaw, D. J., Matthews, L., Friar, J. K., Wilesmith, J., & Woolhouse, M. E. J.
Venue
Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences
Published
2003-01-22
Volume
270
Issue
1511
Pages
121-127
ISSN
  • 0080-4649 (ISSN-L)
  • 0962-8452
  • 1471-2954
OpenAlex
W1980099211
Cited by
180
References
1
FWCI
21.24
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The construction and analysis of epidemic trees with reference to the 2001 UK foot–and–mouth outbreak. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1098/rspb.2002.2191
The paper
Haydon, D. T., Chase–Topping, M., Shaw, D. J., Matthews, L., Friar, J. K., Wilesmith, J., & Woolhouse, M. E. J. (2003). The construction and analysis of epidemic trees with reference to the 2001 UK foot–and–mouth outbreak. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2002.2191

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.