The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Review and comparison between the WellsâRiley and dose-response approaches to risk assessment of infectious respiratory diseases
Open accessAbstract
UNLABELLED: Infection risk assessment is very useful in understanding the transmission dynamics of infectious diseases and in predicting the risk of these diseases to the public. Quantitative infection risk assessment can provide quantitative analysis of disease transmission and the effectiveness of infection control measures. The Wells-Riley model has been extensively used for quantitative infection risk assessment of respiratory infectious diseases in indoor premises. Some newer studies have also proposed the use of dose-response models for such purpose. This study reviews and compares these two approaches to infection risk assessment of respiratory infectious diseases. The Wells-Riley model allows quick assessment and does not require interspecies extrapolation of infectivity. Dose-response models can consider other disease transmission routes in addition to airborne route and can calculate the infectious source strength of an outbreak in terms of the quantity of the pathogen rather than a hypothetical unit. Spatial distribution of airborne pathogens is one of the most important factors in infection risk assessment of respiratory disease. Respiratory deposition of aerosol induces heterogeneous infectivity of intake pathogens and randomness on the intake dose, which are not being well accounted for in current risk models. Some suggestions for further development of the risk assessment models are proposed. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: This review article summarizes the strengths and limitations of the Wells-Riley and the dose-response models for risk assessment of respiratory diseases. Even with many efforts by various investigators to develop and modify the risk assessment models, some limitations still persist. This review serves as a reference for further development of infection risk assessment models of respiratory diseases. The Wells-Riley model and dose-response model offer specific advantages. Risk assessors can select the approach that is suitable to their particular conditions to perform risk assessment.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Review of Aerosol Transmission of Influenza A virus
Tellier, R. (2006) · Emerging Infectious Diseases · doi:10.3201/eid1211.060426 · Cited by 803
Natural Ventilation for the Prevention of Airborne Contagion
Escombe, A. R., Oeser, C. C., Gilman, R. H., Navincopa, M., Ticona, E., Pan, W., Martínez, C., Chacaltana, J., Rodríguez, R., Moore, D. A. J., et al. (2007) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0040068 · Cited by 420
Schaffer, F. L., Soergel, M. E., & Straube, D. C. (1976) · Archives of Virology · doi:10.1007/bf01317930 · Cited by 302
Cited by
Miller, S. L., Nazaroff, W. W., Jimenez, J. L., Boerstra, A., Buonanno, G., Dancer, S. J., Kurnitski, J., Marr, L. C., Morawska, L., & Noakes, C. (2021) · Indoor Air · doi:10.1111/ina.12751 · Cited by 734
Buonanno, G., Morawska, L., & Stabile, L. (2020) · Environment International · doi:10.1016/j.envint.2020.106112 · Cited by 449
“…method (Hammersley and Handscomb, 1964) and adopting the infection risk assessment typically implemented to evaluate the transmission dynamics of infectious diseases and to predict the risk of these diseases to the public (Gammaitoni and Nucci, 1997; Riley et al., 1978; Sze To and Chao, 2010).”
InfluentialAzimi, P., Keshavarz, Z., Cedeno Laurent, J. G., Stephens, B., & Allen, J. G. (2021) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2015482118 · Cited by 245
Close proximity risk assessment for SARS-CoV-2 infection
Cortellessa, G., Stabile, L., Arpino, F., Faleiros, D. E., van den Bos, W., Morawska, L., & Buonanno, G. (2021) · Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.148749 · Cited by 112
Edwards, N. J., Widrick, R., Wilmes, J., Breisch, B., Gerschefske, M., Sullivan, J., Potember, R., & Espinoza-Calvio, A. (2021) · Aerosol Science and Technology · doi:10.1080/02786826.2021.1966376 · Cited by 45
Metadata
- Authors
- Sze To, G. N., & Chao, C. Y. H.
- Venue
- Indoor Air
- Publisher
- Hindawi Limited
- Published
- 2010-02
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 2-16
- ISSN
- 0905-6947 (ISSN-L)
- 1600-0668
- OpenAlex
- W2143889702
- Cited by
- 383
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 3.56
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: Review and comparison between the WellsâRiley and dose-response approaches to risk assessment of infectious respiratory diseases. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1600-0668.2009.00621.x
- The paper
- Sze To, G. N., & Chao, C. Y. H. (2010). Review and comparison between the WellsâRiley and dose-response approaches to risk assessment of infectious respiratory diseases. Indoor Air. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0668.2009.00621.x
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.
