Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 38 references

Modeling the 2022 Mpox Outbreak with a Mechanistic Network Model

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Halving one-time partnerships and vaccinating the top-risk quarter of men cuts mpox infections by about 30 percent, a dynamic network model suggests.

desk verdict A transparent, reproducible mechanistic network model whose qualitative intervention findings hold up, but whose headline numbers are not calibrated to the observed 2022 US mpox epidemic. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.05534 v1 pith:QQ23UC6B submitted 2025-05-08 stat.AP physics.soc-phq-bio.PE

Emma G. Crenshaw , Jukka-Pekka Onnela This is my paper · ORCID
classification stat.APphysics.soc-phq-bio.PE
keywords mpoxagent-basedmodelsexualnetworkmenwhohavesexwithbehaviorchangevaccinationeffectivereproductivenumberinterventiontiming
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

This paper claims that the 2022 mpox outbreak among men who have sex with men can be reproduced by a dynamic sexual-network model, and that halving one-time partnerships plus vaccination—even when applied only to the 25% of men most likely to form such partnerships—cuts cumulative infections by about 30%. It further claims that earlier intervention matters more: beginning vaccination a year before an outbreak leaves only 5.5% of men infected, averting nearly 10% of the population's infections. The model also shows that sustained main and casual partnerships drive the first weeks of transmission, while one-time partnerships become the dominant transmission route thereafter. If these claims hold, outbreak planners should prioritize early, targeted outreach to the highest-risk groups rather than waiting for universal coverage.

What carries the argument

The central object is a dynamic configuration-model sexual network: 10,000 nodes with fixed counts of main and casual partners drawn from observed relationship-type proportions, main and casual edges rewired with geometrically distributed durations, and daily one-time partnerships formed by shuffling and pairing stubs. A discrete-time stochastic SEIR model runs on this network, with per-partnership contact probabilities and a transmission probability of 0.9 per sexual contact. The mechanism that carries the argument is infection-source attribution: every infection records which relationship type transmitted it, allowing the authors to compute relationship-specific effective reproductive numbers $R_t^*$ and the proportion of infections attributable to one-time, casual, and main partnerships over time.

What would settle it

Contact-tracing data from the 2022 outbreak showing that most late-phase infections spread through repeated main or casual partnerships rather than one-time encounters would contradict the central claim. A second check is comparing the model's predicted weekly incidence decline after the day-70 behavior change with observed mpox case counts.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that one-time sexual partnerships, rather than sustained ones, determine the long-run size of a mpox outbreak, and that interventions aimed specifically at the people who form such partnerships are almost as effective as universal interventions. In a simulated population of 10,000 MSM with dynamic main, casual, and one-time partnerships, the no-intervention scenario infects about 16% of the population over 250 days. Adding a 50% reduction in one-time partnership formation and vaccination among only the top two sexual-activity strata (the 25% of men most likely to have a one-time partner) brings cumulative infections down to around 11% of the population, a reduction of about 30% and roughly 500 averted infections. Infection-source tracking shows that the effective reproductive number for one-time partnerships rises from 0.6 at day 0 to 1.48 at day 28, while it falls for casual and main partnerships, meaning one-time partnerships sustain the outbreak after the first weeks.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the real sexual network of men who have sex with men can be represented by random pairing of partnership stubs with no assortativity by risk or demographics, so if actual partner choice is strongly assortative, the estimated benefits of targeting the top 25% could change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A campaign aimed at the 25% of men most likely to form one-time partnerships can avert roughly 30% of infections, nearly matching the effect of universal intervention.
  • Vaccination begun a year before an outbreak could reduce cumulative infections to about 5.5%, showing that pre-outbreak preparedness can largely substitute for later behavior change.
  • Because one-time partnerships become the dominant transmission route after the first weeks, interventions that reduce their frequency will have their largest effect later in the outbreak.
  • The near-equivalence of targeted and universal intervention suggests limited vaccine supply can be routed to high-risk strata without much loss of population-level benefit.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If real MSM networks are assortative by risk rather than randomly mixed, targeting the top 25% could be even more efficient, though the quantitative 30% reduction would shift; this is an extrapolation from the model's no-assortativity assumption.
  • The relationship-specific $R_t^*$ trajectories imply that monitoring one-time partnership rates, not just case counts, could serve as an early warning indicator for mpox-like STI outbreaks.
  • A natural testable extension is to fit the same network architecture to other short-infectious-period STIs and check whether one-time partnerships dominate late transmission, which would generalize the behavior-change messaging.
  • The model's prediction of 5.5% infection with year-early vaccination could be compared with observed outcomes in settings that vaccinated MSM communities before sustained local transmission.
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.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper develops a dynamic agent-based network model of mpox transmission among 10,000 US MSM, with main, casual, and one-time partnerships evolving over time. Using parameters from ARTnet and Atlanta surveys, it simulates SEIR dynamics and compares interventions: universal versus targeted behavior change (reducing one-time partnership formation by 50%) and vaccination with CDC-derived availability. The central findings are that the targeted intervention reduces cumulative infections by about 30% relative to no intervention, earlier vaccination (one year pre-outbreak) reduces final size to 5.5%, and one-time partnerships become the dominant transmission route after the first weeks, with median Rt rising from 0.6 to 1.48 by day 28. The paper includes extensive sensitivity analyses and public code.

Significance. The strength of the manuscript is its transparent and mechanistic framework: the code is public, the parameters are tabulated with sources, each scenario is run for 100 simulations with percentile intervals, and sensitivity analyses cover transmission probability, infection parameters, isolation compliance, and population size. If the results are interpreted as relative scenario comparisons, the model provides useful qualitative insights into the value of early and targeted interventions. However, the lack of any calibration to the observed 2022 US mpox epidemic means the quantitative estimates (16%, 30%, 5.5%) are not empirically validated; the paper currently presents them as though they describe the 2022 outbreak, which overstates their status.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.1 and Appendix A.1] The model's no-intervention baseline infects 15.98% of 10,000 nodes (Section 3.1), and the main targeted intervention still leaves 11.97% infected, whereas the observed US 2022 mpox attack rate was roughly 1.5% (about 30,000 cases against the 1,998,039 at-risk population in Appendix A.1). The model is never calibrated to any observed epidemic curve, and the sensitivity analyses in Figures A5–A9 do not include a scenario reproducing the observed final size. Consequently, the headline estimates of a 30% reduction and a 5.5% final size are not validated estimates for the 2022 US outbreak; they should be reframed as relative scenario results or supplemented with a calibration analysis.
  2. [§2.1.2, Table 1, and Algorithm 3] The one-time partnership rate is parameterized inconsistently. The text calls πo,k the daily probability of forming a one-time partnership and says that π=0.286 corresponds to about 8 one-time partners per month, but Algorithm 3 samples the daily number of one-time partners as n_o ~ Geometric(1-πo,k), whose mean is πo,k/(1-πo,k). For stratum 6 this gives 0.4 partners per day, roughly 12 per month, not 8. This discrepancy changes the effective one-time partnership contact rate throughout the simulation and should be corrected or explicitly justified.
  3. [§3.3] The claim that Rt at t=0 equals R0 is not supportable because the initially infected nodes are deliberately seeded in the top two one-time-partnership strata (Section 2.2). The reported per-relationship Rt values at t=0 are conditional on these high-activity seeds and should be labeled as such; otherwise readers may misinterpret them as population-average basic reproduction numbers.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Figure A5 caption] The caption labels both lower panels as 'Panel C'; the second should be 'Panel D'.
  2. [Appendix A.2.3] The text contains the typographical error 'N = 5,0000' for the 5,000-node network.
  3. [References] Reference [8] is incomplete ('617; 2024'); please provide the full citation.
  4. [§3.1 and Abstract] The abstract states that behavior change and vaccination 'reduce cumulative infections by 30%', but the results show that the reduction is driven almost entirely by behavior change, with vaccination adding no meaningful effect; the abstract should specify that the combined intervention's effect is dominated by behavior change.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the model's outputs are emergent from externally parameterized inputs; self-citations are not load-bearing, and the seeding choice does not force the central claims.

full rationale

The paper's central outputs—cumulative attack rates, percent reductions under interventions, and Rt values by relationship type—are emergent results of a stochastic agent-based simulation driven by externally sourced parameters (ARTnet and Atlanta surveys for network structure, clinical literature for incubation/infectious periods, CDC data for vaccine supply, and published vaccine efficacy estimates). No parameter is fitted to the target mpox outcome, and no equation defines the predicted quantities in terms of the inputs by construction. The claimed 30% reduction under targeted behavior change and the 5.5% infection level with pre-outbreak vaccination are simulation outputs, not renamed inputs. The paper's self-citations (references [8] and [20], both from the Onnela group) are used only as methodological background or as an existing temporal configuration-model framework; they do not supply a load-bearing uniqueness theorem or ansatz. The deliberate seeding of initial infections in the top two one-time-partner strata is a design choice to avoid stochastic extinction, and while it may influence early dynamics, the later claim that one-time partnerships dominate transmission is supported by dynamically tracked infection sources and by the simulated Rt trajectory (0.6 at day 0 rising to 1.48 at day 28), so it is not equivalent to the seeding assumption by definition. The absence of calibration to the observed 2022 US epidemic—where the model's no-intervention baseline of roughly 16% is far above the observed attack rate—is a substantive model-validity concern, but it concerns external fit rather than circularity. No step of the derivation reduces to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model is assembled from empirical survey parameters and assumed behavioral mechanisms. The most consequential inputs are the per-contact transmission probability beta, the diagnosis and isolation behavior, and the network rewiring rules. None of these are inferred from the observed 2022 mpox outcome, which keeps circularity low but leaves external validity open. The free parameters listed here are the ones that most directly control the headline attack-rate and intervention effect numbers.

free parameters (6)
  • beta (transmission probability per sexual contact) = 0.9
    Table 1 lists beta = 0.9 without a direct citation; sensitivity analysis also uses 0.5.
  • initial infected fraction and seeding strata = 0.1% of nodes, selected from top two sexual activity strata
    Section 2.2 states seeds are placed in the top 25% by one-time partnership probability to prevent stochastic extinction, which affects early Rt and the apparent role of one-time partnerships.
  • diagnosis delay schedule = 15 days at outbreak start, decreasing by 1 day every 4 days, minimum 5 days
    Section 2.2 assumes a time-dependent diagnosis delay to model growing awareness; this directly shapes how long infected nodes remain in the network before isolation.
  • care-seeking probability = 0.8
    Section 2.2 assumes 80% of infected individuals seek care and isolate; the other 20% never isolate, a strong assumption for the main results.
  • behavior change reduction factor = 0.5 (main scenario)
    Section 2.3.1 models behavior change as a 50% reduction in one-time partnership formation probability, based on survey estimates, and this is the central intervention mechanism.
  • daily one-time partnership probabilities by stratum = 0, 0.001, 0.0054, 0.0101, 0.0315, 0.286
    Section 2.1.2 assigns each node to one of six sexual activity strata with these daily probabilities, from survey data; these values drive the targeted intervention results.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Configuration model stub matching with random rewiring and no assortativity by node features.
    Section 2.1 states the network is initialized as a configuration model and rewires randomly within relationship type; partner choice carries no preferences beyond degree. If real networks assort by risk, targeted intervention effects could differ.
  • domain assumption Per-day sexual contact and transmission events are independent Bernoulli trials with fixed probabilities.
    Section 2.2 defines transmission as the product of contact probability and beta; no within-partnership correlation, seasonality, or variation over the infectious period is modeled.
  • domain assumption One-time partnerships last exactly one day and are formed by daily random stub shuffling.
    Section 2.1.2 and Algorithm 3 define one-time partnerships as non-repeated daily events; this assumption directly produces the result that one-time partnerships become the dominant late-outbreak transmission route.
  • domain assumption SEIR natural history with independent Normal draws for exposed and infectious durations, and no reinfection.
    Section 2.2 assigns time in exposed and infected states from Normal(7,1) and Normal(27,3) per node, and assumes permanent recovery; this is a standard but simplified natural history.
  • ad hoc to paper Initial infection is seeded in the top two sexual activity strata to avoid stochastic extinction.
    Section 2.2 chooses the 0.1% initially infected from the 25% of nodes most likely to have one-time partners, which biases early dynamics and R0 toward high-risk nodes.
  • ad hoc to paper Behavior change reduces only the probability of forming one-time partnerships, not main or casual partnership contact rates.
    Section 2.3.1 models behavior change as a multiplicative reduction in one-time partnership probability. This intervention definition partly builds in the conclusion that one-time partnerships are the key modifiable behavior.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Modeling the 2022 Mpox Outbreak with a Mechanistic Network Model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QQ23UC6B

@misc{pith2026250505534,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Modeling the 2022 Mpox Outbreak with a Mechanistic Network Model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QQ23UC6B}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.05534}
}
read the original abstract

We implemented a dynamic agent-based network model to simulate the spread of mpox in a United States-based MSM population. This model allowed us to implement data-informed dynamic network evolution to simulate realistic disease spreading and behavioral adaptations. We found that behavior change, the reduction in one-time partnerships, and widespread vaccination are effective in preventing the transmission of mpox and that earlier intervention has a greater effect, even when only a high-risk portion of the population participates. With no intervention, 16% of the population was infected (25th percentile, 75th percentiles of simulations: 15.3%, 16.6%). With vaccination and behavior change in only the 25% of individuals most likely to have a one-time partner, cumulative infections were reduced by 30%, or a total reduction in nearly 500 infections. Earlier intervention further reduces cumulative infections; beginning vaccination a year before the outbreak results in only 5.5% of men being infected, averting 950 infections or nearly 10% of the total population in our model. We also show that sustained partnerships drive the early outbreak, while one-time partnerships drive transmission after the first initial weeks. The median effective reproductive number, Rt, at t = 0 days is 1.30 for casual partnerships, 1.00 for main, and 0.6 for one-time. By t = 28, the median Rt for one-time partnerships has more than doubled to 1.48, while it decreased for casual and main partnerships: 0.46 and 0.29, respectively. With the ability to model individuals' behavior, mechanistic networks are particularly well suited to studying sexually transmitted infections, the spread and control of which are often governed by individual-level action. Our results contribute valuable insights into the role of different interventions and relationship types in mpox transmission dynamics.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Epidemiological trends and clinical features of the ongoing monkeypox epidemic: A preliminary pooled data analysis and literature review

    Bragazzi NL, Kong JD, Mahroum N, Tsigalou C, Khamisy-Farah R, Converti M, et al. Epidemiological trends and clinical features of the ongoing monkeypox epidemic: A preliminary pooled data analysis and literature review. Journal of Medical Virology. 2023;95(1):p.e27931. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmv.27931

    work page doi:10.1002/jmv.27931 2023

  2. [2]

    Estimation of local transmissibility in the early phase of monkeypox epidemic in 2022

    Kwok KO, Wei WI, Tang A, Yeung S, Wong S, Tang JW. Estimation of local transmissibility in the early phase of monkeypox epidemic in 2022. Clinical Micro- biology and Infection. 2022;28(12):1–1653. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmi.2022. 06.025

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cmi.2022 2022

  3. [3]

    Available from: https://worldhealthorg.shinyapps.io/mpx global/

    WHO.: 2022-23 Mpox (Monkeypox) Outbreak: Global Trends. Available from: https://worldhealthorg.shinyapps.io/mpx global/

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    Monkeypox infection: An update for the practicing physician

    Patauner F, Gallo R, Durante-Mangoni E. Monkeypox infection: An update for the practicing physician. European Journal of Internal Medicine. 2022;104:1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejim.2022.08.022

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ejim.2022.08.022 2022

  5. [5]

    Nowcasting and forecasting the 2022 U.S

    Charniga K, Madewell ZJ, Masters NB, Asher J, Nakazawa Y, Spicknall IH. Nowcasting and forecasting the 2022 U.S. mpox outbreak: Support for public health decision making and lessons learned. Epidemics. 2024;47:100755. https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.epidem.2024.100755

    arXiv 2022

  6. [6]

    Complex agent networks explaining the HIV epidemic among homosexual men in Amsterdam

    Mei S, Sloot PMA, Quax R, Zhu Y, Wang W. Complex agent networks explaining the HIV epidemic among homosexual men in Amsterdam. Mathematics and Com- puters in Simulation. 2010;80(5):1018–1030. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matcom. 2009.12.008. 54

    doi:10.1016/j.matcom 2010

  7. [7]

    Isolating the sources of racial disparities in HIV prevalence among men who have sex with men (MSM) in Atlanta, GA: A modeling study

    Goodreau SM, Rosenberg ES, Jenness SM, Luisi N, Stansfield SE, Millett GA, et al. Isolating the sources of racial disparities in HIV prevalence among men who have sex with men (MSM) in Atlanta, GA: A modeling study. The Lancet HIV. 2017;4(7):e311–e320. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2352-3018(17)30067-X

    work page doi:10.1016/s2352-3018(17)30067-x 2017

  8. [8]

    A review of network models for HIV spread

    Mattie H, Goyal R, De Gruttola V, Onnela JP. A review of network models for HIV spread. 617; 2024

    work page 2024

Show all 38 references
  1. [9]

    Proportion of Incident HIV Cases among Men Who Have Sex with Men Attributable to Gonorrhea and Chlamydia: A Modeling Analysis

    Jones J, Weiss K, Mermin J, Dietz P, Rosenberg ES, Gift TL, et al. Proportion of Incident HIV Cases among Men Who Have Sex with Men Attributable to Gonorrhea and Chlamydia: A Modeling Analysis. Sexually Transmitted Diseases. 2019;46(6):357–363. https://doi.org/10.1097/OLQ.0000...

    2019 doi

  2. [10]

    Heavy-tailed sexual contact networks and monkeypox epidemiology in the global outbreak, 2022

    Endo A, Murayama H, Abbott S, Ratnayake R, Pearson CAB, Edmunds WJ, et al. Heavy-tailed sexual contact networks and monkeypox epidemiology in the global outbreak, 2022. Science. 2022;378(6615):90–94. https://doi.org/10.1126/ science.add4507

    2022

  3. [11]

    Estimating the relative importance of epidemiological and behavioural param- eters for epidemic mpox transmission: a modelling study

    Chaturvedi M, Rodiah I, Kretzschmar M, Scholz S, Lange B, Karch A, et al. Estimating the relative importance of epidemiological and behavioural param- eters for epidemic mpox transmission: a modelling study. BMC Medicine. 2024;22(1):297–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-024-03515-8

    2024 doi

  4. [12]

    Zhang XS, Mandal S, Mohammed H, Turner C, Florence I, Walker J, et al. Transmission dynamics and effect of control measures on the 2022 outbreak of mpox among gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men in England: a mathematical modelling study. The Lancet Infectious D...

    2022 doi

  5. [13]

    Estimating the incubation period of monkeypox virus during the 2022 multi- national outbreak

    Charniga K, Masters NB, Slayton RB, Gosdin L, Minhaj FS, Philpott D, et al. Estimating the incubation period of monkeypox virus during the 2022 multi- national outbreak. medRxiv. 2022;p. 2022.06.22.22276713. https://doi.org/10. 1101/2022.06.22.22276713

    2022

  6. [14]

    Time Scales of Human Mpox Transmission in The Netherlands

    Miura F, Backer JA, van Rijckevorsel G, Bavalia R, Raven S, Petrignani M, et al. Time Scales of Human Mpox Transmission in The Netherlands. The Journal of Infectious Diseases. 2024 4;229(3):800–804. https://doi.org/10.1093/infdis/ jiad091

    2024 doi

  7. [15]

    Modelling the impact of vaccination and sexual behavior adaptations on mpox cases in the USA during the 2022 outbreak

    Clay PA, Asher JM, Carnes N, Copen CE, Delaney KP, Payne DC, et al. Modelling the impact of vaccination and sexual behavior adaptations on mpox cases in the USA during the 2022 outbreak. Sexually Transmitted Infections. 2024;100(2):70–76. https://doi.org/10.1136/sextrans-2023-...

    2022 doi

  8. [16]

    Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report Strategies Adopted by Gay, Bisexual, and Other Men Who Have Sex with Men to Prevent Monkeypox virus Transmission-United States

    Delaney KP, Sanchez T, Hannah M, Winslow Edwards, Carpino T, Agnew-Brune C, et al. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report Strategies Adopted by Gay, Bisexual, and Other Men Who Have Sex with Men to Prevent Monkeypox virus Transmission-United States. MMWR Morbidity and Mortality...

    2022

  9. [17]

    The Roles of Unrecognized Mpox Cases, Contact Isolation and Vaccination in Determining Epidemic Size in Belgium: A Modeling Study

    Van Dijck C, Hens N, Kenyon C, Tsoumanis A. The Roles of Unrecognized Mpox Cases, Contact Isolation and Vaccination in Determining Epidemic Size in Belgium: A Modeling Study. Clinical Infectious Diseases. 2023 9;76(3):e1421– e1423. https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciac723

    2023 doi

  10. [18]

    Monkeypox: A review of epidemiological modelling studies and how modelling has led to mechanistic insight

    Banuet-Martinez M, Yang Y, Jafari B, Kaur A, Butt ZA, Chen HH, et al. Monkeypox: A review of epidemiological modelling studies and how modelling has led to mechanistic insight. Epidemiology and Infection. 2023;151. https: //doi.org/10.1017/S0950268823000791. 56

    2023 doi

  11. [19]

    Spicknall IH, Pollock ED, Clay PA, Oster AM, Charniga K, Masters N, et al. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report Modeling the Impact of Sexual Networks in the Transmission of Monkeypox virus Among Gay, Bisexual, and Other Men Who Have Sex With Men-United States, 2022. MMWR Mor...

    2022

  12. [20]

    Temporal Configuration Model: Statistical Inference and Spreading Processes

    Le TM, Hambridge H, Onnela JP. Temporal Configuration Model: Statistical Inference and Spreading Processes. arXiv. 2024;p. 1–22

    2024

  13. [21]

    Egocentric sexual networks of men who have sex with men in the United States: Results from the ARTnet study

    Weiss KM, Goodreau SM, Morris M, Prasad P, Ramaraju R, Sanchez T, et al. Egocentric sexual networks of men who have sex with men in the United States: Results from the ARTnet study. Epidemics. 2020 3;30:100386. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/J.EPIDEM.2020.100386

    2020

  14. [22]

    Networks

    Newman M. Networks. Oxford University Press; 2018. Available from: https: //doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198805090.001.0001

    2018

  15. [23]

    Jenness SM, Goodreau SM, Rosenberg E, Beylerian EN, Hoover KW, Smith DK, et al. Impact of the Centers for Disease Control’s HIV Preexposure Pro- phylaxis Guidelines for Men Who Have Sex With Men in the United States The Journal of Infectious Diseases Impact of the Centers for ...

    2016 doi

  16. [24]

    Heterogeneity of HIV prevalence among the sexual networks of Black and White MSM in Atlanta: illuminating a mechanism for increased HIV risk for young Black MSM

    Hern´ andez-Romieu AC, Sullivan PS, Rothenberg R, Grey J, Luisi N, Kelley CF, et al. Heterogeneity of HIV prevalence among the sexual networks of Black and White MSM in Atlanta: illuminating a mechanism for increased HIV risk for young Black MSM. Sexually transmitted diseases....

    2015 doi

  17. [25]

    Monkeypox Virus Infection in Humans across 16 Countries ˆ a €” Aprilˆ a€“June

    Thornhill JP, Barkati S, Walmsley S, Rockstroh J, Antinori A, Harrison LB, et al. Monkeypox Virus Infection in Humans across 16 Countries ˆ a €” Aprilˆ a€“June

  18. [26]

    Epidemiological and clinical characteristics of patients with monkeypox in the GeoSentinel Network: a cross-sectional study

    Angelo KM, Smith T, Camprub´ ı-Ferrer D, Balerdi-Sarasola L, D´ ıaz Men´ endez M, Servera-Negre G, et al. Epidemiological and clinical characteristics of patients with monkeypox in the GeoSentinel Network: a cross-sectional study. The Lancet Infectious Diseases. 2022 10;23(2):...

    2022

  19. [27]

    Clinical presentation and virological assessment of confirmed human monkey- pox virus cases in Spain: a prospective observational cohort study

    Tar´ ın-Vicente EJ, Alemany A, Agud-Dios M, Ubals M, Su˜ ner C, Ant´ on A, et al. Clinical presentation and virological assessment of confirmed human monkey- pox virus cases in Spain: a prospective observational cohort study. The Lancet. 2022;400(10353):661–669. https://doi.or...

    2022 doi

  20. [28]

    CROI 2023: Epidemiology, Diagnosis, and Management of Mpox

    Zucker J. CROI 2023: Epidemiology, Diagnosis, and Management of Mpox. Topics in Antiviral Medicine. 2023;31(3):510–519

    2023

  21. [29]

    Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/poxvirus/ monkeypox/cases-data/technical-report/report-4.html#US

    CDC.: Technical Report 4: Multi-National Mpox Outbreak, United States, 2022 — Mpox — Poxvirus — CDC. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/poxvirus/ monkeypox/cases-data/technical-report/report-4.html#US

    2022

  22. [30]

    Available from: https: //www.cdc.gov/poxvirus/mpox/response/2022/amis-select-behaviors.html#: ∼: text=Inanonlinesurveyof,and50%25reportedreducingsex

    CDC.: Impact of Mpox Outbreak on Select Behaviors. Available from: https: //www.cdc.gov/poxvirus/mpox/response/2022/amis-select-behaviors.html#: ∼: text=Inanonlinesurveyof,and50%25reportedreducingsex

    2022

  23. [31]

    Estimated Effectiveness of JYNNEOS Vaccine in Preventing Mpox : A Multi- jurisdictional Case-Control Study ˆ a€” United States, August 19, 2022ˆ a€“March 58 31, 2023

    Dalton AF, Diallo AO, Chard AN, Moulia DL, Deputy NP, Fothergill A, et al. Estimated Effectiveness of JYNNEOS Vaccine in Preventing Mpox : A Multi- jurisdictional Case-Control Study ˆ a€” United States, August 19, 2022ˆ a€“March 58 31, 2023. MMWR Morbidity and Mortality Weekly...

    2023

  24. [32]

    JYNNEOS Vaccination Coverage Among Persons at Risk for Mpox ˆ a €” United States, May 22, 2022ˆ a €“January 31, 2023

    Owens LE, Currie DW, Kramarow EA, Siddique S, Swanson M, Carter RJ, et al. JYNNEOS Vaccination Coverage Among Persons at Risk for Mpox ˆ a €” United States, May 22, 2022ˆ a €“January 31, 2023. MMWR Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. 2023;72(13):342–347. https://doi.org/10....

    2023 doi

  25. [33]

    Available from: https://github.com/ onnela-lab/mpox-model

    Crenshaw E, Onnela JP.: mpox-model. Available from: https://github.com/ onnela-lab/mpox-model

  26. [34]

    Vaccine Effectiveness of JYNNEOS against Mpox Disease in the United States

    Deputy NP, Deckert J, Chard AN, Sandberg N, Moulia DL, Barkley E, et al. Vaccine Effectiveness of JYNNEOS against Mpox Disease in the United States. New England Journal of Medicine. 2023;388(26):2434–2443. https://doi.org/10. 1056/nejmoa2215201

    2023

  27. [35]

    Available from: https://www

    CDC.: Mpox Vaccine Administration in the U.S. Available from: https://www. cdc.gov/poxvirus/mpox/response/2022/vaccines data.html

    2022

  28. [36]

    Available from: https:// www.cdc.gov/poxvirus/mpox/cases-data/mpx-jynneos-vaccine-coverage.html

    CDC.: JYNNEOS Vaccine Coverage by Jurisdiction. Available from: https:// www.cdc.gov/poxvirus/mpox/cases-data/mpx-jynneos-vaccine-coverage.html

  29. [37]

    Incubation Period and Serial Interval of Mpox in 2022 Global Outbreak Compared with Historical Estimates

    Ponce L, Linton NM, Toh WH, Cheng HY, Thompson RN, Akhmetzhanov AR, et al. Incubation Period and Serial Interval of Mpox in 2022 Global Outbreak Compared with Historical Estimates. Emerging Infectious Diseases. 2024;30(6):1173–1181. https://doi.org/10.3201/eid3006.231095. 59

    2022

  30. [2022]

    2022;387(8):679–691

    New England Journal of Medicine. 2022;387(8):679–691. https://doi.org/ 10.1056/nejmoa2207323

    2022 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.