ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2025
Understanding Nash epidemics.
Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- The theory of epidemics with altruism.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026Article
- Testing paradox may explain increased observed prevalence of bacterial STIs among MSM on HIV PrEP: A modeling study.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025Article
- Development of a behavioural modulation strategy for disease control based on network interventions.Royal Society open science · 2025Article
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
Abstract
Faced with a dangerous epidemic humans will spontaneously social distance to reduce their risk of infection at a socioeconomic cost. Compartmentalized epidemic models have been extended to include this endogenous decision making: Individuals choose their behavior to optimize a utility function, self-consistently giving rise to population behavior. Here, we study the properties of the resulting Nash equilibria, in which no member of the population can gain an advantage by unilaterally adopting different behavior. We leverage an analytic solution that yields fully time-dependent rational population behavior to obtain, 1) a simple relationship between rational social distancing behavior and the current number of infections; 2) scaling results for how the infection peak and number of total cases depend on the cost of contracting the disease; 3) characteristic infection costs that divide regimes of strong and weak behavioral response; 4) a closed form expression for the value of the utility. We discuss how these analytic results provide a deep and intuitive understanding of the disease dynamics, useful for both individuals and policymakers. In particular, the relationship between social distancing and infections represents a heuristic that could be communicated to the population to encourage, or "bootstrap," rational behavior.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.