Back

A model assessing potential benefits of isolation and mass testing on COVID-19: the case of Nigeria

Chirove, F.; Madubueze, C. E.; Chazuka, Z.; Madubueze, S. C.

2020-09-03 infectious diseases
10.1101/2020.09.01.20186288 medRxiv
Show abstract

We consider a model with mass testing and isolation mimicking the current policies implemented in Nigeria and use the Nigerian daily cumulative cases to calibrate the model to obtain the optimal mass testing and isolation levels. Mathematical analysis was done and important thresholds such the peak size relation and final size relation were obtained. Global stability analysis of the disease-free equilibrium indicated that COVID-19 can be eradicated provided that [Formula] and unstable otherwise. Results from simulations revealed that an increase in mass testing and reduction of transmission from isolated individuals are associated with benefits of increasing detected cases, lowering peaks of symptomatic cases, increase in self-isolating cases, decrease in cumulative deaths and decrease in admissions into monitored isolation facilities in the case of Nigeria.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
● 5266 papers in training set
Top 10%
18.6%
Similar papers in this journal
2
Infectious Disease Modelling
○ 54 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
12.0%
Similar papers in this journal
3
Chaos, Solitons & Fractals
○ 32 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
8.9%
Similar papers in this journal
4
Scientific Reports
○ 3612 papers in training set
Top 15%
5.5%
Similar papers in this journal
5
Royal Society Open Science
● 214 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
4.9%
Similar papers in this journal
6
BMC Infectious Diseases
○ 133 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
4.3%
50% of probability mass above
7
Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering
● 23 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
4.1%
8
Mathematical Biosciences
○ 49 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
2.1%
9
Nonlinear Dynamics
○ 10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.1%
10
PLOS Computational Biology
● 1863 papers in training set
Top 13%
2.0%
11
Frontiers in Public Health
○ 148 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.7%
12
The European Physical Journal Plus
○ 13 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.4%
13
Epidemics
○ 116 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.3%
14
PLOS Global Public Health
● 344 papers in training set
Top 6%
1.3%
15
F1000Research
○ 88 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.1%
16
Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences
● 15 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.1%
17
Journal of Theoretical Biology
○ 162 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.1%
18
BMC Public Health
○ 158 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.1%
19
Nature Communications
○ 5641 papers in training set
Top 52%
1.1%
20
Journal of The Royal Society Interface
● 235 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.9%
21
Applied Sciences
○ 25 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.9%
22
PeerJ
◐ 308 papers in training set
Top 11%
0.8%
23
Physical Review E
● 112 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
24
JMIR Public Health and Surveillance
◐ 45 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
25
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
○ 128 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.8%
26
Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science
● 17 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.6%
27
Heliyon
○ 152 papers in training set
Top 9%
0.6%
28
Epidemiology and Infection
◐ 89 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.6%

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.