Multi-Strain Age-Structured Dengue Transmission Model: Analysis and Optimal Control

Michelle N. Raza; Randy L. Caga-anan

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 30 references

Multi-Strain Age-Structured Dengue Transmission Model: Analysis and Optimal Control

T0 review · 4 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that, in a four-strain age-structured dengue model of the Philippines, optimally delivered mosquito control and early medical care cut infections more than optimally delivered Dengvaxia vaccination.

desk verdict The Dengvaxia policy comparison collapses because vaccination removes people from the population instead of making them immune; the math is standard and the R0 derivation is fine, but the headline result is an artifact of that modeling choice. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.02196 v1 pith:ETAS5ZDV submitted 2019-08-06 q-bio.PE

Michelle N. Raza , Randy L. Caga-anan This is my paper · ORCID

classification q-bio.PE MSC 92D3037N2549N90

keywords denguedengvaxiaSIRmodeloptimalcontrolmulti-strainage-structuredreproductionnumbervector

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper proposes a compartmental model of dengue transmission with all four serotypes, split into two age groups to reflect the 9-to-45-year-old age window of the Dengvaxia vaccine. It uses optimal control theory to ask what the best possible 20-year Dengvaxia campaign would have achieved compared with the best possible use of standard interventions: mosquito and transmission reduction, plus early medical care. The central result is that the optimal versions of the usual strategies reduce total infected individuals more than the optimal Dengvaxia strategy. A sympathetic reader would care because the Philippines has banned Dengvaxia, and this comparison suggests that the ban need not leave the country without effective options.

What carries the argument

The central object is a 17-dimensional scaled compartmental system in which susceptibility is indexed by the number of dengue strains a person has already had ($S_4$, $S_3$, $S_2$, $S_1$), so four serotypes are represented without tracking which strain infected whom; the two age groups $a$ and $b$ are the under-9/over-45 population and the 9-45 vaccine-eligible population. This structure lets the Dengvaxia control $u_3$ act only on previously infected 9-to-45-year-olds ($S_{1b}$, $S_{2b}$, $S_{3b}$), while transmission-reduction $u_1$ scales every infection term and medical-care $u_2$ scales every recovery term. The analysis machinery is Pontryagin's maximum principle applied to a Hamiltonian with quadratic control costs, giving explicit adjoint equations and a characterization of the three optimal controls.

What would settle it

Re-run the optimal-control simulation with $u_3$ transferring vaccinated susceptibles into the recovered classes $R_b$ (alive and immune) instead of subtracting them from the total population, leaving all other parameters unchanged, and compare the minimized infected totals; if Dengvaxia's total falls below the transmission-reduction total, the paper's central comparison is not robust.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the model's own terms, the main discovery is a ranking: with the same quadratic cost weights and a 2020-2040 horizon, the optimal transmission-reduction control $u_1$ produces a larger decrease in the total infected population than the optimal Dengvaxia vaccination control $u_3$, and combining $u_1$ with the early-medical-care control $u_2$ does even better. The model also yields a closed-form reproduction number $R_0$ that blends transmission in the two age groups and the rates at which people age between them, with stability when $R_0 < 1$. The numerical comparison rests on parameter choices from Philippine dengue surveillance and published transmission and recovery rates.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that vaccinating a susceptible 9-to-45-year-old removes that person from the population rather than making them immune and keeping them alive.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

In the model, a sustained, well-run mosquito-control and early-treatment program yields a larger drop in dengue infections than a Dengvaxia campaign restricted to previously infected 9-to-45-year-olds.
The optimal transmission-reduction and medical-care controls stay near their maximum for nearly the full 20-year horizon, so the modeled advantage depends on continuous effort, not a one-time campaign.
The closed-form $R_0$ expression shows which age-group transmission and aging parameters drive endemicity, giving concrete targets for surveillance and intervention.
Combining transmission reduction with proper medical care gives the largest modeled reduction, supporting integrated programs over a single intervention.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

A realistic vaccine that moves vaccinated susceptibles into an immune, alive class, rather than removing them from the population, could show a better Dengvaxia outcome than the paper reports; the removal assumption may bias the comparison.
Because the model tracks only the number of past infections and not serotype identities, it cannot represent antibody-dependent enhancement; a strain-resolved model might assign a different value to a four-serotype vaccine.
Equal cost weights $B_1=B_2=B_3=10^6$ are an assumption; if the real costs of vector control, clinic care, and vaccination differ substantially, the optimal mix of controls could shift even if the single-control ranking persists.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague,

The paper's abstract claims that optimal vector control and early treatment beat Dengvaxia. That conclusion is not supported. The vaccine control u3 is added as a removal term -u3(S1b+S2b+S3b) in the susceptible equations and in dN/dt, with no corresponding transfer into the recovered/immune class. Vaccinated people simply vanish. That is equivalent to an extra death rate, which changes the force of infection via the denominator N and gives Dengvaxia an artificial handicap. The stress-test note is right on this, and it is load-bearing: the policy comparison is exactly between Dengvaxia and the other controls.

What the paper does well: the strain-agnostic compartment structure (tracking number of prior infections rather than strain identity) is a nice simplification that cuts the equations from dozens to 17/18. The R0 derivation via next-generation matrix is standard and appears correct; the expression is plausible and the stability argument is routine. The existence of optimal controls via Pontryagin is also standard and the adjoint system is worked out in full. This is honest work in that sense.

Soft spots, in order: (1) the vaccine removal error is fatal to the headline. (2) Parameters are largely hand-set: secondary/tertiary transmission coefficients are arbitrary fractions of alpha1, recovery rates are guessed, cost weights are all 10^6, and no sensitivity or uncertainty analysis is given. (3) No code, no data, no parameter tables with sources beyond a few citations. The figures show simulation outputs but there is no way to reproduce them. (4) The initial conditions are not derived from any reported data; they are just listed.

The R0 and the compartment reduction could be reused in a better-validated model, and the discussion is honest about the behavioral advantage of vaccination (no discipline needed). But as it stands, the paper does not support its policy conclusion.

Who this is for: someone building multi-strain dengue models with optimal control might get a useful structural template, but the numerical results should not be cited as evidence about Dengvaxia versus vector control. I would not cite the results.

Recommendation: send to peer review? Yes - a serious referee can separate the reusable math from the broken vaccine model, and the modeling error is fixable. But the paper should not be accepted without a corrected vaccine compartment and a sensitivity analysis. My call: reject in current form, but engage with it because the core structure has value.

Referee Report

4 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a deterministic compartmental model of dengue transmission with four serotypes, two age groups (9-45 years and the rest of the population), and state variables that track the number of previous infections rather than the specific infecting serotypes. It derives a basic reproduction number via the next-generation matrix, then formulates an optimal control problem over 2020-2040 with three controls: transmission reduction (u1), early medical care (u2), and Dengvaxia vaccination of seropositive 9-45-year-olds (u3). Using hand-calibrated parameters and stated initial conditions, the numerical simulations show that the optimal transmission-reduction strategy reduces the infected count more than the optimal Dengvaxia strategy, and the paper concludes that the usual intervention strategies are better than Dengvaxia.

Significance. If the comparison were reliable, the result would be directly relevant to dengue policy in the Philippines, where Dengvaxia has been banned, and the model's aggregation by number of previous infections is a useful dimensionality reduction for multi-strain dengue models. The R0 calculation is a standard, self-contained next-generation matrix derivation, and the optimal-control existence argument follows the usual Pontryagin route. However, the policy comparison is not supported as stated: vaccination is modeled as removal from the population, the parameters for non-primary infections and the initial conditions are not justified, and the printed optimality conditions contain inconsistencies. No code, sensitivity analysis, or reproducibility artifacts are provided, so the headline conclusion cannot be verified or interpreted.

major comments (4)

[Section 3, Eq. (3)] The Dengvaxia control u3 is modeled as removal of seropositive susceptibles from the population rather than transfer to immunity: dS1b/dt, dS2b/dt, and dS3b/dt each contain -u3Sib, and dN/dt contains -u3(S3b+S2b+S1b), but no corresponding positive term adds these individuals to Rb or to any other compartment. Vaccinated persons therefore vanish from the system as if they had died, which reduces N and artificially increases the force of infection I/N on the remaining susceptibles while also lowering the future infected count by deleting susceptibles. Because the abstract's conclusion compares the optimal u3 strategy with the optimal u1 and u2 strategies, this unphysical removal mechanism is load-bearing; a corrected model should move u3Sib to an immune/recovered class with N conserved apart from natural and disease-induced deaths, and the simulations must be rerun under that model.
[Section 3.2] The secondary, tertiary, and quaternary transmission coefficients are set as arbitrary fractions of the primary coefficients (alpha2a = 0.6125999 x alpha1a, alpha3a = 0.195696 x alpha1a, alpha4a = 0.017496 x alpha1a, with the same multipliers for group b), based only on the observed serotype distribution, and the recovery rates for later infections are taken as half of the primary recovery rates. These choices are not derived from data or from a mechanistic argument, and no sensitivity analysis is reported. Since Figures 2-5, and hence the ranking of controls, depend directly on these values, the headline result is an assumption-driven simulation rather than a robust finding. Parameter ranges and a sensitivity analysis (one-at-a-time or global) are needed before any policy conclusion can be drawn.
[Section 3.3] The stated initial conditions imply that about 37 million of the approximately 110 million individuals are currently infected at t=0, i.e., roughly one-third of the population is simultaneously infectious. This is epidemiologically implausible for dengue and is not justified by any data source in the paper. Because the objective functional integrates I(t) over the whole 20-year horizon, this initial condition can dominate the optimal-control comparison and may bias the ranking of strategies. The authors should derive initial conditions from reported incidence or prevalence (for example by projecting the steady state or fitting to surveillance data) and show robustness to reasonable perturbations.
[Section 3.1, Theorem 3.1] The optimality conditions as printed are not self-consistent and cannot be used to reproduce the simulations. In the proof, the equation for dH/du2 contains B3 u2 instead of B2 u2; the expression for Z in the theorem statement omits the gamma terms and lambda19 sum that appear in the later displayed Z within the proof; and the final characterization of u3* is 1/B3 [lambda12 S3b - lambda14 S2b - lambda16 S1b - lambda19(S3b+S2b+S1b)], which has the opposite signs from the expression (lambda12 S3b + lambda14 S2b + lambda16 S1b + lambda19(S3b+S2b+S1b))/B3 obtained from dH/du3 = 0. These discrepancies make it unclear whether the reported optimal controls and infected-count trajectories correspond to the stated problem.

minor comments (7)

[Section 2, system (2)] In the equation for dS4B/dt, the quantity x is not defined; it is presumably 1 minus the other fractions, but this should be stated explicitly.
[Section 2, definition of D] The domain D contains repeated conditions ('SiA >= 0' appears twice) and uses Ra and RB inconsistently with the scaled variables RA and RB.
[Section 2, Theorem 2.1] The proof only checks nonnegativity on coordinate hyperplanes; it does not fully verify that the flow remains inside the simplex-type domain D, and the derivative inequality for the sum should be justified more carefully.
[Section 3.2] The sentence assigning gamma1b = 2.0 x 10^{-7} and gamma1b = 3.0 x 10^{-7} sets the same parameter to two different values; presumably the second value is intended for gamma1a.
[Section 3.3] The text refers to 'Theorem 4.1.1', but the optimal-control existence result is numbered Theorem 3.1 in the manuscript; this cross-reference should be corrected.
[Section 3, control bounds] The controls are first said to range over the interval (0,1), but the optimization set Omega uses lower and upper bounds a=0.05 and b=0.95; this convention should be clarified.
[Figures 2-5] The figures lack axis labels and clear legends, and the numerical method used to solve the optimal-control problem is not described; please add these details for reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the policy comparison is a simulation output, not an identity or a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central comparison comes from numerically solving an optimal-control problem with explicitly stated model equations and literature-derived parameter estimates; it is not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, and no equation reduces to another by construction. The R0 calculation is a standard next-generation-matrix computation from the linearized infection subsystem and does not presuppose the reproduction number. The optimality system is derived from Pontryagin's maximum principle, and the control characterizations follow by differentiating the Hamiltonian; the equal cost weights B1=B2=B3=1e6 are imposed rather than derived, but imposing a cost weight is a modeling assumption, not a circular step. The most serious concern is that the Dengvaxia control u3 removes vaccinated susceptibles from the population through the terms -u3*Sib in the state equations and -u3(S3b+S2b+S1b) in dN/dt, rather than transferring them to the recovered class; this is an unphysical model assumption that may affect the quantitative policy comparison, but it is not circular because the conclusion is not encoded in that assumption by definition. There are no load-bearing self-citations and no uniqueness claim imported from the authors' prior work, so the derivation chain is self-contained.

Assumptions & free parameters 12 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central simulation rests on many hand-set numbers and strong assumptions. The transmission coefficients for secondary and later infections are derived from a serotype distribution without mechanistic justification, recovery and death rates are adjusted qualitatively, cost weights are arbitrary, and initial conditions are not tied to surveillance data. The most fragile assumption is that vaccination removes individuals from the population.

free parameters (12)

Primary transmission coefficients alpha1a, alpha1b = 2.8125
Computed from vector-host parameters in [7] and [21] as m c^2 beta_H beta_V / mu_V. Same value for both age groups.
Secondary transmission coefficients alpha2a, alpha2b = 1.7229
Set as 0.6125999 times alpha1 based on serotype distribution from DOH [8]; no mechanistic basis.
Tertiary transmission coefficients alpha3a, alpha3b = 0.550395
Set as 0.195696 times alpha1 from the same serotype distribution; no mechanistic basis.
Quaternary transmission coefficients alpha4a, alpha4b = 0.0478125
Set as 0.017496 times alpha1; ad hoc.
Recovery rates beta = beta1b=0.32833, beta1a=0.30, beta2-4b=0.164165, beta2-4a=0.15
Taken from Syafruddin and Noorani [23] and adjusted qualitatively for age and infection number.
Infection death rates gamma = gamma1a=3e-7, gamma1b=2e-7, gamma2-4a=6e-7, gamma2-4b=4e-7
Chosen qualitatively because deaths are more prevalent in children and later infections; no fitting shown.
Birth and death rates mu, delta = 8.5e-4 and 4.5e-4
From [7].
Aging rates epsilon1, epsilon2 = 6.92e-5 each
Estimated from age group sizes; procedure not described.
Initial conditions for all compartments = Listed in Section 3.3
No data source or fitting given; total exceeds 110 million, with over 38 million infected.
Control cost weights B1, B2, B3 = 1e6 each
Set equal and arbitrary; affects the optimal control and thus the comparison.
Control bounds a, b = 0.05 and 0.95
Assumed, no justification.
Time horizon T0, T1 = 2020 and 2040
Assumed 20-year program.

assumptions (7)

domain assumption Homogeneous mixing and mass action transmission
Force of infection is proportional to total infected fraction I/N in all infection terms.
domain assumption Vector population is not explicitly modeled; transmission is aggregated into alpha
Justified by Pandey et al. [25] for some populations.
ad hoc to paper Two-pool age structure with constant transfer rates
Ages below 9 and above 45 are pooled into group a, and 9-45 into group b, with constant rates epsilon1 and epsilon2.
domain assumption Serotype identity is irrelevant; only the number of past infections matters
The model does not track which strains infected a person.
ad hoc to paper Vaccinated susceptible people are removed from the population without becoming immune
Eq. (3) subtracts u3 S_i b and removes them from N; no vaccinated class exists.
domain assumption All parameters are constant over the 20-year horizon
No time dependence or seasonality is modeled.
ad hoc to paper Dengvaxia is given only to seropositive 9-45 year olds and confers immediate protection
Control u3 targets S3b, S2b, S1b only.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Multi-Strain Age-Structured Dengue Transmission Model: Analysis and Optimal Control." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ETAS5ZDV

@misc{pith2026190802196,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Multi-Strain Age-Structured Dengue Transmission Model: Analysis and Optimal Control},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ETAS5ZDV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.02196}
}

read the original abstract

Dengue is a serious health problem in the Philippines. In 2016, the Department of Health of the country launched a dengue vaccination campaign using Dengvaxia. However, the campaign was mired with controversy and the use of Dengvaxia was banned in the country. This study proposes a mathematical model that represents the dynamics of the transmission of dengue with its four strains. Considering that the Dengvaxia vaccine was intended to be given only to people aging from 9 to 45 years old, the human population is divided into two age groups: from 9-45 years old and the rest of the population. Using this model and optimal control theory we simulate what could have been the effect of Dengvaxia in the number of dengue cases and then compare this with the other usual dengue intervention strategies. Results show that the best implementation of the usual strategies is better than that of Dengvaxia.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.02196 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Optimal strategy and corresponding effect for Dengvaxia [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Optimal strategy and corresponding effect for tranmission reduction [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Optimal strategy and corresponding effect for proper medical care [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Optimal strategy and corresponding effect for the combined trans [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

[1]

Aguiar, B

M. Aguiar, B. W. Kooi, F. Rocha, P. Ghaﬀari, & N. Stollenwerk, How much complexity is needed to describe the ﬂuctuations observed in dengue hemorrhagic fever incidence data? Ecological Complexity 16 (2013) 31- 40

work page 2013
[2]

A. Alto. Quicker, Cheaper, and Proudly Pinoy First Dengue Diagnostic Kit Developed by UP Manila Scientists, (2017). https://www.upm.edu.ph/node/2288

work page 2017
[3]

R. M. Anderson, Discussion: The Kermack-McKendrick epidemic thresh- old theorem. Bulletin of Mathematical Biology, 53(1-2) (1991), 1

work page 1991
[4]

Basaez, R

R. Basaez, R. Paluga, On the Well-posedness of the Minimal Descriptive Model in Characterizing a Tourist Site

work page
[5]

Bichara, A

D. Bichara, A. Iggidr, & G. Sallet, Global analysis of multi-strains SIS, SIR and MSIR epidemic models. Journal of Applied Mathematics and Computing, 44(1-2) (2014), 273-292

work page 2014
[6]

Braun, Diﬀerential Equations and Their Applications, An Introduction to Applied Mathematics

M. Braun, Diﬀerential Equations and Their Applications, An Introduction to Applied Mathematics. Second edition. Springer-Verlag, New York Inc., 1975. Multi-Strain Age-Structured Dengue Transmission Model 22

work page 1975
[7]

de los Reyes V & J.M

A. de los Reyes V & J.M. Escaner IV, Dengue in the Philippines: model and analysis of parameters aﬀecting transmission, Journal of Biological Dynamics, 12:1 (2018) 894-912

work page 2018
[8]

Department of Health (DOH) Philippines, Dengue Surveilance Update (Monthly dengue report), 2018

work page 2018

Show all 30 references

[9]

Department of Health (DOH) Philippines, Dengue (Health maps), 2018

2018
[10]

Derouich, A

M. Derouich, A. Boutayeb, & E.H. Twizell, A model of Dengue fever, BioMedical Engineering OnLine, 2(4) (2003)

2003
[11]

Driessche, & J

V. Driessche, & J. Watmough, Reproduction numbers and sub-threshold endemic equilibria for compartmental models of disease transmission, Math Biosci, 180 (2002), 29-48

2002
[12]

Heesterbeek, & J

Diekmann, J. Heesterbeek, & J. Metz, On the deﬁnition and the compu- tation of the basic reproductive ratio r0 in models for infectious diseases in heterogeneous populations, J Math Biol 28 (1990),365383

1990
[13]

Feng, & J

Z. Feng, & J. X. Velasco-Hernandez. Competitive exclusion in a vector host model for the Dengue fever. Journal of Mathematical Biology , 35 (1997), 523-544

1997
[14]

J. M. Hyman, & T. Laforce. Modeling the Spread of Inﬂuenza Among Cities, (2003)

2003
[15]

Kaplan, Advanced Calculus, 3rd ed., 1984

W. Kaplan, Advanced Calculus, 3rd ed., 1984

1984
[16]

W. O. Kermack, & A. G. McKendrick, Contributions to the mathematical theory of epidemics. II. The problem of endemicity. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A, containing papers of a mathematical and physical character, 138(834) (1932), 55-83

1932
[17]

S. Kim, A. de los Reyes V, & E. Jung. (2018). Mathematical model and intervention strategies for mitigating tuberculosis in the Philippines. Jour- nal of theoretical biology, 443, 100-112

2018
[18]

Kolman and D

B. Kolman and D. R. Hill, Elementary Linear Algebra with Applications (9th edition), 2008

2008
[19]

Larson, Elementary Linear Algebra 8th Edition

R. Larson, Elementary Linear Algebra 8th Edition . The Behrend College, The Pennsylvania State Univ., 2009

2009
[20]

Lenhart & J

S. Lenhart & J. Workman, Optimal Control Applied to Biological Models. Chapman & Hall/CRC Mathematical and Computational Biology Series, 2007. Multi-Strain Age-Structured Dengue Transmission Model 23

2007
[21]

Lope & J

J.E. Lope & J. Addawe, Analysis of age-structured malaria transmission model, Philippine Science Letters 5(2) (2012), 169-186

2012
[22]

Martcheva, An Introduction to Mathematical Epidemiology

M. Martcheva, An Introduction to Mathematical Epidemiology . Springer Science Business Media, New York, 2015

2015
[23]

M. S. M. Noorani, SEIR model for transmission of dengue fever in Selangor Malaysia. In International Journal of Modern Physics: Conference Series World Scientiﬁc Publishing Company , 9 (2012), 380- 389

2012
[24]

Nuraini, E

N. Nuraini, E. Soewong, & K. A. Sidarto . Mathematical Model of Dengue Disease Transmission with Severe DHF Compartment. Bulletin of the Malaysian Mathematical Sciences Society , 30(2) (2007), 143-157

2007
[25]

Pandey, A

A. Pandey, A. Mubayi, & J. Medlock. Comparing vector-host and SIR models for dengue transmission. Mathematical biosciences,246(2) (2013), 252-259

2013
[26]

Side, & M

S. Side, & M. S. M. Noorani, A SIR model for spread of dengue fever disease (simulation for South Sulawesi, Indonesia and Selangor, Malaysia), World Journal of Modeling and Simulation , 9(2) (2013), 96-105

2013
[27]

Tenenbaum & H

M. Tenenbaum & H. Pollard, Ordinary Diﬀerential Equations. Dover Pub- lications, Inc., 31 East 2nd Street, Mineola, N.Y., (11501) (1963)

1963
[28]

World Health Organization, Dengue and severe dengue (fact sheets), 2017

2017
[29]

World Health Organization, Dengue Control (fact sheets), 2017

2017
[30]

World Health Organization, Immunization, Vaccines and Biologicals (fact sheets), 2018

2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Aguiar, B

M. Aguiar, B. W. Kooi, F. Rocha, P. Ghaﬀari, & N. Stollenwerk, How much complexity is needed to describe the ﬂuctuations observed in dengue hemorrhagic fever incidence data? Ecological Complexity 16 (2013) 31- 40

work page 2013

[2] [2]

A. Alto. Quicker, Cheaper, and Proudly Pinoy First Dengue Diagnostic Kit Developed by UP Manila Scientists, (2017). https://www.upm.edu.ph/node/2288

work page 2017

[3] [3]

R. M. Anderson, Discussion: The Kermack-McKendrick epidemic thresh- old theorem. Bulletin of Mathematical Biology, 53(1-2) (1991), 1

work page 1991

[4] [4]

Basaez, R

R. Basaez, R. Paluga, On the Well-posedness of the Minimal Descriptive Model in Characterizing a Tourist Site

work page

[5] [5]

Bichara, A

D. Bichara, A. Iggidr, & G. Sallet, Global analysis of multi-strains SIS, SIR and MSIR epidemic models. Journal of Applied Mathematics and Computing, 44(1-2) (2014), 273-292

work page 2014

[6] [6]

Braun, Diﬀerential Equations and Their Applications, An Introduction to Applied Mathematics

M. Braun, Diﬀerential Equations and Their Applications, An Introduction to Applied Mathematics. Second edition. Springer-Verlag, New York Inc., 1975. Multi-Strain Age-Structured Dengue Transmission Model 22

work page 1975

[7] [7]

de los Reyes V & J.M

A. de los Reyes V & J.M. Escaner IV, Dengue in the Philippines: model and analysis of parameters aﬀecting transmission, Journal of Biological Dynamics, 12:1 (2018) 894-912

work page 2018

[8] [8]

Department of Health (DOH) Philippines, Dengue Surveilance Update (Monthly dengue report), 2018

work page 2018