Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33013002›Full record

ArticleJournal of loss prevention in the process industries2020

How can process safety and a risk management approach guide pandemic risk management?

Md Alauddin, Md Aminul Islam Khan, Faisal Khan, Syed Imtiaz, Salim Ahmed, Paul Amyotte

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of loss prevention in the process industries, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Special issue: Process safety in times of a pandemic.Journal of loss prevention in the process industries · 2022
    Article
  4. Human resource risk control through COVID-19 risk assessment in Indonesian manufacturing.Journal of loss prevention in the process industries · 2022
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Pandemic risk management using engineering safety principles.Process safety and environmental protection : transactions of the Institution of Chemical Engineers, Part B · 2021
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
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

6 authors.

Md AlauddinCentre for Risk, Integrity and Safety Engineering (C-RISE) Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John's, NL, Canada.
Md Aminul Islam KhanCentre for Risk, Integrity and Safety Engineering (C-RISE) Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John's, NL, Canada.
Faisal KhanCentre for Risk, Integrity and Safety Engineering (C-RISE) Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John's, NL, Canada.
Syed ImtiazCentre for Risk, Integrity and Safety Engineering (C-RISE) Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John's, NL, Canada.
Salim AhmedCentre for Risk, Integrity and Safety Engineering (C-RISE) Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John's, NL, Canada.
Paul AmyotteDepartment of Process Engineering and Applied Science Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) brought the world to a halt in March 2020. Various prediction and risk management approaches are being explored worldwide for decision making. This work adopts an advanced mechanistic model and utilizes tools for process safety to propose a framework for risk management for the current pandemic. A parameter tweaking and an artificial neural network-based parameter learning model have been developed for effective forecasting of the dynamic risk. Monte Carlo simulation was used to capture the randomness of the model parameters. A comparative analysis of the proposed methodologies has been carried out by using the susceptible, exposed, infected, quarantined, recovered, deceased (SEIQRD) model. A SEIQRD model was developed for four distinct locations: Italy, Germany, Ontario, and British Columbia. The learning-based approach resulted in better outcomes among the models tested in the present study. The layer of protection analysis is a useful framework to analyze the effect of different safety measures. This framework is used in this work to study the effect of non-pharmaceutical interventions on pandemic risk. The risk profiles suggest that a stage-wise releasing scenario is the most suitable approach with negligible resurgence. The case study provides valuable insights to practitioners in both the health sector and the process industries to implement advanced strategies for risk assessment and management. Both sectors can benefit from each other by using the mathematical models and the management tools used in each, and, more importantly, the lessons learned from crises.

Indexed as

Layers of protectionNeural networkNon-pharmaceutical interventionsPandemicProcess monitoringRisk

Identifiers

PMID33013002
PMCPMC7525359

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.