ArticleJournal of mathematical biology2014
React or wait: which optimal culling strategy to control infectious diseases in wildlife.
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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Reframing Optimal Control Problems for Infectious Disease Management in Low-Income Countries.Bulletin of mathematical biology · 2023Article
- A game-theoretic model of rabies in domestic dogs with multiple voluntary preventive measures.Journal of mathematical biology · 2022Article
- On the optimal control of SIR model with Erlang-distributed infectious period: isolation strategies.Journal of mathematical biology · 2021Article
- Harvest strategies for the elimination of low prevalence wildlife diseases.Royal Society open science · 2021Article
- Active responses to outbreaks of infectious wildlife diseases: objectives, strategies and constraints determine feasibility and success.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2020Article
- Time-optimal control strategies in SIR epidemic models.Mathematical biosciences · 2017Article
- Management and modeling approaches for controlling raccoon rabies: The road to elimination.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2017Review
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
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
Identifiers
24057080What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.