Back

Inverse proportionality between height and duration of epidemic peaks not observed for the COVID-19 epidemic in Japan

Tomie, T.

2022-03-24 infectious diseases
10.1101/2022.03.23.22272840 medRxiv
Show abstract

The height of the epidemic peaks varied ten-fold, but the duration was almost constant independent of the peak height in the six times COVID-19 epidemics in Japan over the past two years. The observed relation between the peak height and duration contradicts the inverse proportionality, which is the essential conclusion derived from mathematical models for infectious diseases. We found that the peak height was inversely proportional to the number of rhinovirus patients. The literature has revealed the mechanism behind our found power of rhinovirus suppressing COVID-19. We discuss that the critical flaw of current mathematical models originates in the absence of the 0th power term of the number of infected people in the Kermack and McKendrick equation.

Matching journals

The top 8 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
● 5266 papers in training set
Top 11%
15.5%
Similar papers in this journal
2
Scientific Reports
○ 3612 papers in training set
Top 6%
8.1%
Similar papers in this journal
3
Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering
● 23 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.9%
Similar papers in this journal
4
Infectious Disease Modelling
○ 54 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
5.7%
Similar papers in this journal
5
Physical Review E
● 112 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
5.0%
Similar papers in this journal
6
Royal Society Open Science
● 214 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
4.1%
7
Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science
● 17 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.3%
8
PLOS Computational Biology
● 1863 papers in training set
Top 9%
3.3%
50% of probability mass above
9
Nonlinear Dynamics
○ 10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.3%
10
Chaos, Solitons & Fractals
○ 32 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.5%
11
The European Physical Journal Plus
○ 13 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.5%
12
Frontiers in Public Health
○ 148 papers in training set
Top 3%
2.2%
13
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
○ 128 papers in training set
Top 3%
2.0%
14
Mathematical Biosciences
○ 49 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.8%
15
Frontiers in Physics
○ 21 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.2%
16
Heliyon
○ 152 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.2%
17
Physical Review Research
● 49 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.2%
18
Biophysical Journal
○ 631 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.1%
19
PeerJ
◐ 308 papers in training set
Top 8%
1.1%
20
Computers in Biology and Medicine
○ 128 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.1%
21
Journal of The Royal Society Interface
● 235 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.9%
22
Archives of Clinical and Biomedical Research
○ 28 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
23
F1000Research
○ 88 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.9%
24
Frontiers in Applied Mathematics and Statistics
○ 11 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.9%
25
BMC Infectious Diseases
○ 133 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.9%
26
Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications
○ 13 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.9%
27
Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence
○ 20 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.6%
28
Vaccines
○ 198 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.6%
29
Viruses
○ 332 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.6%
30
Journal of Biosciences
○ 15 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
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.