ArticleFrontiers in veterinary science2026
A stochastic framework to assess the optimal allocation of limited vaccine doses in foot-and-mouth disease outbreaks using game theory.
Article in Frontiers in veterinary science, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The necessary response to a livestock transboundary infectious disease outbreak will likely outpace available resources. Consequently, policymakers need strategies to inform decisions about allocating limited resources. This study aimed to develop a stochastic framework that strategically examines vaccine allocation in a series of simultaneous multi-player decision sets, using game theory and allocation rules. Methods: We modeled 11 stochastic foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) scenarios using InterSpread Plus (Version 6.01.44). Stakeholders were designated as decision-maker one (DM1, the index state) and decision-maker two (DM2, a group of three neighboring states) requesting all or a share of the available vaccines. We selected two outcome criteria for examination: outbreak size and duration. Vaccine allocation strategies were determined by four rules. Rule 1 prioritized allocation to the index state, rule 2 prioritized allocation to neighboring states, rule 3 provided equal prioritization, and rule 4 prioritized allocation based on the percentage of dairy cattle in each state. For each scenario, 300 iterations were completed using matched random seeds. The outcome rankings of each matched iteration were treated as the payoffs of DMs and were analyzed as static games with perfect information. Nash equilibrium and Pareto optimal solutions were summarized across scenarios and iterations within each rule. Decision positions were evaluated per allocation rule according to game theory equilibrium principles. Results: Rule 3, equal prioritization, resulted in a Pareto optimal solution more frequently, benefiting both DMs, and had the highest level of agreement in decision-states between Nash equilibrium and Pareto optimal outcomes. For rules 1-3, Pareto optimal solutions did not consistently result in lower outbreak size and duration (90th percentile) for both DMs when compared to Nash equilibrium solutions. Under rule 4, outbreak size and duration metrics showed less differentiation between decision positions. Discussion: This stochastic framework incorporates epidemiological data and accounts for the payoffs resulting from multiple stakeholders' choices. This approach can aid in decision-making for scarce resource allocation in contexts where individual payoffs depend on others' choices. Additionally, these findings contribute to improving preparedness for an outbreak of FMD in disease-free regions.
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.