Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24057080›Full record

ArticleJournal of mathematical biology2014

React or wait: which optimal culling strategy to control infectious diseases in wildlife.

Luca Bolzoni, Valentina Tessoni, Maria Groppi, Giulio A De Leo

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of mathematical biology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Luca BolzoniIstituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale della Lombardia e dell'Emilia Romagna, Via dei Mercati 13, 43100 , Parma, Italy, luca.bolzoni@izsler.it.
Valentina Tessoni
Maria Groppi
Giulio A De Leo

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We applied optimal control theory to an SI epidemic model to identify optimal culling strategies for diseases management in wildlife. We focused on different forms of the objective function, including linear control, quadratic control, and control with limited amount of resources. Moreover, we identified optimal solutions under different assumptions on disease-free host dynamics, namely: self-regulating logistic growth, Malthusian growth, and the case of negligible demography. We showed that the correct characterization of the disease-free host growth is crucial for defining optimal disease control strategies. By analytical investigations of the model with negligible demography, we demonstrated that the optimal strategy for the linear control can be either to cull at the maximum rate at the very beginning of the epidemic (reactive culling) when the culling cost is low, or never to cull, when culling cost is high. On the other hand, in the cases of quadratic control or limited resources, we demonstrated that the optimal strategy is always reactive. Numerical analyses for hosts with logistic growth showed that, in the case of linear control, the optimal strategy is always reactive when culling cost is low. In contrast, if the culling cost is high, the optimal strategy is to delay control, i.e. not to cull at the onset of the epidemic. Finally, we showed that for diseases with the same basic reproduction number delayed control can be optimal for acute infections, i.e. characterized by high disease-induced mortality and fast dynamics, while reactive control can be optimal for chronic ones.

Indexed as

Models, TheoreticalAnimalsAnimals, WildBasic Reproduction NumberCommunicable DiseasesEpidemicsNumerical Analysis, Computer-AssistedPopulation DensityTime Factors

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 OpenQuestion graph.