ArticlePloS one2026
Beyond traditional outbreak investigation: Using genomic data for enhanced detection of COVID-19 disease clusters in Utah.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTraditional disease surveillance, such as manual case investigation, was the primary method for identifying disease clusters during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the pandemic also provides an opportunity to explore how genomic data can be used to improve cluster detection and response. While genomic data can complement traditional methods, guidelines are needed to integrate genomic data into real-time outbreak response.
methodsUsing binomial and multinomial logistic regression, we compared two methods of disease surveillance in Utah: genomic sequencing of COVID-19 cases and manual case investigation. We evaluated whether these two methods reached the same populations geographically and demographically. Next, we performed genomic clustering using SNP distance thresholds and a logit regression model to identify potential transmission clusters. We compared genomic clusters with epi-identified clusters, defined by manual case investigation, using cluster validation metrics (Adjusted Rand Index, VI), and by assessing biological plausibility (monophyly).
resultsThe odds of a case being sequenced varied significantly by jurisdiction and race/ethnicity, with patients in several non-White groups being less likely to undergo sequencing. The genomic clustering methods produced clusters that were notably different from epi-identified clusters. Genomic methods, particularly the logit model, resulted in strong clusters based on metrics of cluster validation and biological plausibility. Analysis of specific epi-defined clusters revealed significant discordance with genomic data. Many large clusters were likely composed of multiple distinct genomic introductions, or contained cases that were not genomically linked.
conclusionsGenomic data provides an advanced level of resolution for defining disease clusters compared to traditional epidemiological data. The disparities in sequencing coverage necessitate demographically and geographically diverse sampling strategies. Furthermore, it is essential to prioritize sequencing cases in a suspected cluster to maximize the impact of genomic surveillance. Integrating genomic data into epidemiologic investigation enables more precise cluster definitions, strengthening outbreak investigation and public health mitigation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.