Back

Estimating the effectiveness of syndromic screening at airports for Bundibugyo ebolavirus disease

Quilty, B. J.

2026-06-12 epidemiology
10.64898/2026.06.11.26355442 medRxiv
Show abstract

We used a stochastic simulation model to estimate the effectiveness of combined exit and entry airport screening for Bundibugyo ebolavirus disease (BVD), using natural-history parameters from a Bayesian re-analysis of the 2012 Isiro outbreak. For a 12-hour international flight from DRC or Uganda at 86% screening sensitivity, we estimate 65% of infected travellers would arrive undetected (95% CrI: 38 - 76%). The main driver of this outcome is the relative duration of the the incubation period (approximately 7.7 days) and the onset-to-severe-disease interval (approximately 4 days): most infected travellers board before symptom onset and are undetectable by any syndromic screen, whilst those who are symptomatic progress rapidly to illness severe enough to preclude travel. This is compounded during active epidemic growth, when recently exposed (and therefore pre-symptomatic) cases are overrepresented among travellers. Syndromic airport screening offers limited protection against BVD spread via air travel, and should be complemented by outbreak control at source and strengthened clinical surveillance in receiving countries with high travel connectivity to affected areas.

Matching journals

The top 9 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Nature Communications
○ 5641 papers in training set
Top 14%
12.6%
Similar papers in this journal
2
The Lancet Infectious Diseases
○ 73 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
7.7%
Similar papers in this journal
3
BMC Medicine
○ 176 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
6.6%
Similar papers in this journal
4
Journal of Travel Medicine
◐ 18 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
5.4%
Similar papers in this journal
5
eLife
● 5828 papers in training set
Top 23%
5.4%
Similar papers in this journal
6
The Lancet Microbe
○ 44 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.2%
7
Nature Medicine
○ 125 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
4.2%
8
Clinical Infectious Diseases
◐ 235 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.0%
9
New England Journal of Medicine
● 52 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.7%
50% of probability mass above
10
PLOS Computational Biology
● 1863 papers in training set
Top 11%
2.6%
11
The Journal of Infectious Diseases
◐ 202 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.6%
12
Eurosurveillance
● 83 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.3%
13
The Lancet Global Health
○ 27 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.1%
14
PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases
● 466 papers in training set
Top 3%
2.1%
15
Nature Human Behaviour
○ 95 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.9%
16
The Lancet Regional Health - Americas
○ 22 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.7%
17
Emerging Infectious Diseases
● 105 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.6%
18
The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene
● 68 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.6%
19
International Journal of Epidemiology
◐ 88 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.5%
20
International Journal of Infectious Diseases
○ 129 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.4%
21
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
● 2444 papers in training set
Top 36%
1.1%
22
PLOS Medicine
● 110 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.1%
23
Epidemics
○ 116 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.1%
24
Communications Medicine
○ 113 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.1%
25
Scientific Reports
○ 3612 papers in training set
Top 67%
1.0%
26
The Lancet Public Health
○ 20 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.0%
27
The Lancet Regional Health - Europe
○ 33 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.0%
28
BMJ Global Health
● 113 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.8%
29
PLOS Biology
● 486 papers in training set
Top 12%
0.8%
30
Nature
○ 645 papers in training set
Top 11%
0.8%

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.