Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 45 references

Dynamics of Infection Spread and Hotspot Growth in Bi-Pathogen Networks

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that stationary infection hotspots can grow in severity over time under both super-infection and co-infection dynamics on multiplex networks, potentially leading to system collapse.

desk verdict A thorough simulation study that demonstrates hotspot growth and collapse only in hand-picked, extreme parameter regimes, so the headline claim is not yet shown to be generic. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.03374 v1 pith:25B5LXDE submitted 2025-09-03 physics.soc-ph math.DSnlin.AOq-bio.PE

Alyssa Yu , Laura P. Schaposnik This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.soc-phmath.DSnlin.AOq-bio.PE MSC 92D3035K57
keywords epidemicmodelsreaction-diffusionTuringpatternsmultiplexnetworkssuper-infectionco-infectionbi-virusmodelhotspotgrowth
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 asks what happens when two pathogens spread through a network of connected regions, each interacting with the other and with human movement between regions. Using numerical experiments with the authors' reaction–diffusion framework on multiplex networks, it claims that under both super-infection and co-infection dynamics, infection hotspots that stay fixed in space can nonetheless grow steadily in severity—eventually driving the susceptible population to vanish across most of the network, a system collapse. It also identifies the conditions that amplify or suppress this behavior: large gaps between the pathogens' transmission and removal rates, negative cross-diffusion, and strong diffusion disparities favor hotspot growth, while varying the network's layerwise connectivity or letting one pathogen dominate inhibits it. Beyond pattern formation, the simulations show that limiting migration of infected individuals is the most effective early containment measure, and that scale-free network topologies spread both pathogens faster than small-world ones—a candidate explanation for holiday-season outbreak surges. If these results hold, they give quantitative signatures for when a two-pathogen epidemic will form stationary, targetable hotspots and when those hotspots will grow toward collapse.

What carries the argument

The engine of the argument is the Multiplex Bi-Virus Reaction–Diffusion (MBRD) framework from the companion paper: coupled reaction–diffusion systems on multilayer metapopulation networks—three layers (susceptible, pathogen 1, pathogen 2) for super-infection, plus a co-infection density layer with no edges for co-infection. The load-bearing mechanism is the Turing instability: small stochastic perturbations of a spatially uniform steady state are amplified into stationary spatial patterns when the diffusion coefficients and cross-diffusion terms (susceptibles migrating toward infected regions) differ strongly across layers. The paper tracks outcomes with a network-wide pattern amplitude—the

What would settle it

Re-run the MBRD-SI and MBRD-CI simulations on the same networks and Example 1/Example 2 parameters but with non-negative cross-diffusion, with edges added to the co-infection layer so co-infected individuals can diffuse, and with unequal layerwise average degrees. If in any of these settings the stationary hotspots stop growing and no system collapse occurs over long integration times, the paper's central claim—that stationary hotspots can grow to collapse under both dynamics—would be shown to hold only for the specific modeling choices in those examples.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In both the super-infection model (MBRD-SI) and the co-infection model (MBRD-CI), the paper finds that multiplex reaction–diffusion dynamics can produce Turing-instability hotspots that stay pinned in space yet grow steadily in amplitude until the system collapses—susceptible and pathogen-1 densities fall to zero in most nodes. The phenomenon appears in two explicit regimes and is narrow, requiring a large gap between the pathogens' transmission and removal rates, negative cross-diffusion drawing susceptibles toward infected areas, and strong diffusion disparity. It also claims that varying layerwise degrees inhibits pattern formation and that pathogen dominance suppresses hotspot growth.

Load-bearing premise

The collapse phenomenon is demonstrated only for hand-selected parameter sets that include negative cross-diffusion and a very large pathogen-2 diffusion, and the co-infection model assumes co-infected individuals never move; if real bi-pathogen systems do not satisfy these conditions, the hotspot-growth and collapse results may not be generic.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Stationary hotspots mean targetable outbreaks: because Turing-instability hotspots stay pinned to fixed locations, location-based interventions can be aimed before growth accelerates, whereas moving patterns would be far harder to respond to.
  • A screening rule emerges for the growing-hotspot window: significant gaps between the two pathogens' transmission and removal rates, negative cross-diffusion, and large diffusion disparities are the signatures that indicate a two-pathogen system is in the regime where hotspots grow toward collapse.
  • Containment priority is clear: in the early stage of bi-pathogen spread, restricting the migration of infected individuals (quarantine) slows both pathogens far more than restricting susceptible movement.
  • Topology explains seasonal surges: scale-free network structures spread both pathogens faster than small-world structures, so holiday-season mobility that turns human movement patterns scale-free-like can produce outbreak spikes even under bi-pathogen dynamics.
  • Co-transmission has a sweet spot: intermediate values of the co-transmission coefficient β12 maximize spatial oscillations, and a threshold relating β12 to the co-infection removal rate α12 controls whether co-infections become endemic or die out.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A full parameter-space sweep is the obvious next step: the two worked examples sample one point in the growing-hotspot window each, so mapping the window's boundaries would turn the qualitative claim into a predictive phase diagram for when bi-pathogen systems collapse.
  • The roughly linear, slope-near-one relationship the paper fits between the β12 threshold and the co-infection removal rate α12 implies a testable control rule: to keep co-infection from becoming endemic, raising co-infection removal must be matched by a nearly equal cut in co-transmission.
  • The holiday-surge explanation is directly testable: compare spread indices on mobility networks built from travel-season versus off-season movement data; the model predicts faster saturation and higher peaks in the scale-free-like holiday regime.
  • The same multiplex mechanism should transfer to competing information or malware strains, where 'hotspot growth' would appear as echo-chamber amplification or cascading node takeover—an extension the paper cites as motivation but does not simulate.
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

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper presents a simulation-based study of two multiplex reaction-diffusion epidemic models introduced in a companion paper: MBRD-SI (superinfection) and MBRD-CI (co-infection). The authors simulate pattern formation, hotspot growth, and point-source outbreaks on lattice, Watts-Strogatz, and Barabási-Albert networks. The main claimed results are that stationary Turing-type hotspots can grow in severity and lead to system collapse under both models; that higher superinfection or co-transmission coefficients accelerate spread; that limiting infected migration is important for containment; and that network topology affects spread, with BA networks producing faster propagation than WS networks. The paper also compares simulated co-infection spatial patterns with COVID-19/tuberculosis data from Recife and HIV/tuberculosis data from Jiangsu, claiming qualitative agreement. The central numerical evidence for the collapse phenomenon is based on two parameter sets (Examples 1 and 2) that include negative cross-diffusion and a large pathogen-2 diffusion coefficient, and the MBRD-CI model has no diffusion on the co-infection layer.

Significance. If the claims are robust, this work could contribute to the understanding of spatial pattern formation in multi-pathogen systems and inform discussions of targeted interventions. The paper has some strengths: it systematically compares several network topologies and degree combinations, reports averages over 1000 trials for the point-source tables, and attempts to connect simulation output to real co-infection data. However, the headline result of growing hotspots and system collapse is demonstrated only for hand-picked parameter sets with no uncertainty quantification or robustness analysis, and the model itself embeds several of the reported effects by construction. The real-world comparisons are descriptive and lack statistical testing. As presented, the paper is better characterized as an exploratory simulation study than as a set of established quantitative findings. The central claims may be salvageable, but they require additional numerical and statistical support.

major comments (5)
  1. [§III.B, Examples 1 and 2 (Eqs. 5-6)] The central claim that stationary hotspots can grow until system collapse is supported by exactly two parameter sets, both with d12=d13=-0.2 and d33=4.8, parameters that the paper itself (Section III.C) identifies as pattern-inducing. No parameter sweep, continuation, or perturbation study is reported around these examples. Consequently the reader cannot determine whether growing hotspots and collapse occur in an open region of parameter space or only at fragile, specially chosen points. Please provide a systematic scan (e.g., over d12, d13, d33, β1/β2, σ/β12) and report the fraction of parameter combinations exhibiting growth and collapse, with collapse times or growth rates and error bars.
  2. [§III.A, density floor and collapse definition] The text states 'we set 0 as the minimum threshold for all densities.' Since system collapse is identified by densities reaching 0, the hard floor can create an absorbing state that the continuous ODE would not approach in the same way. The paper does not test whether collapse still occurs without clipping or with a positivity-preserving integrator. Please report whether the same initial conditions and parameters lead to densities approaching zero (rather than being reset to zero artificially), and quantify changes in collapse times or growth rates. Also report the numerical integrator, step size, and tolerance used.
  3. [§II, Figure 1; §III.B Example 2] The MBRD-CI model has no edges on the fourth (co-infection) layer, so co-infected individuals cannot diffuse. The claim that co-infection dynamics produce growing hotspots and system collapse is therefore untested for any regime with nonzero co-infected mobility. Because co-infected individuals are often mobile in real populations (e.g., COVID-19/TB co-infected patients can travel), this is a load-bearing limitation. Either extend the model to allow C-layer diffusion and re-run the collapse examples, or explicitly scope all MBRD-CI conclusions to immobile co-infected populations and state that the collapse phenomenon is not shown to persist under C-mobility.
  4. [§V, real-world comparison] The comparison with Recife and Jiangsu data is qualitative and lacks statistical testing. For example, the statement that 'for more than 35% of the regions, the absolute difference between the COVID and tuberculosis category numbers are greater than 2' is not compared to a null model of independent random categories; similarly, the 'around 87 percent' co-infection-tuberculosis agreement is reported without a test of association or confidence interval. Hotspot/coldspot statements from Wu et al. are also qualitative. Please add formal statistical tests (e.g., permutation tests, chi-square or Fisher exact tests on category counts, spatial correlation measures) before claiming that the simulations are supported by real-world data.
  5. [§III.C, §IV.E, §VI] Several headline results are direct consequences of the model equations rather than emergent simulation discoveries. For example, higher σ directly increases the superinfection conversion term -σβ2 J_i I_i/(S+I+J) in Eq. (1); higher β12 directly increases co-infection production in Eq. (2); and reducing d22/d33 directly slows spatial spread of infected populations. Presenting these as 'findings' or 'observations' is circular and obscures the genuinely non-obvious results, such as the non-monotonic amplitude response to β12 in Figure 7. Please explicitly distinguish structural consequences from emergent behaviors and reframe the conclusions accordingly.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Equation (2)] The denominators S_i+I_i+J_i-C_i can vanish if all four densities are zero; the paper should state how the reaction terms are handled in that case (e.g., by setting the fraction to zero) to ensure the numerical scheme is well defined.
  2. [Figure 7 caption] The fitted Fourier coefficients are given as 'a2 = 0.2676, 0.7012'; the second value is presumably b2 and should be labeled. Similarly, in Figure 13's caption, 'where 1 .1382 and b = 227' is missing the coefficient name and has a typo.
  3. [Definition 5] The definition of peak time uses a condition 'δ(t) = δ(t*) ∀ t ∈ {(t*, u] | t ≡ 0 mod n}' where n is not defined. This should be τ, consistent with the initial definition. Also, the phrase 'an smallest integer multiple' should be 'the smallest integer multiple'.
  4. [Figure 8 caption] The caption reads 'LA14-LA4-LA4 (left)' but the text and Section III.D describe only LA4, LA12, and LA24 lattices; LA14 appears to be a typo for LA12-LA4-LA4.
  5. [Tables I and II] The tables are described as averages of 1000 trials, but no standard deviations, standard errors, or confidence intervals are reported. Since the WS and BA networks are stochastic, some measure of variability is needed to compare entries across degree combinations.
  6. [§III.D and §VI] The paper states that 'Turing-Hopf patterns are rarer than Turing patterns' without quantifying this claim or explaining how the two pattern types were distinguished. Please provide a criterion or prevalence measure, or soften the statement.

Circularity Check

4 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Several headline results are direct consequences of the MBRD equation definitions (sigma, beta_12, alpha_12, infected-diffusion); the collapse claim is also weakened by hand-picked parameters and the zero-density floor, so the paper is partially circular but not entirely.

  1. self definitional [Section IV.E, Equation (1)]
    "Because a larger superinfection coefficient σ allows pathogen 2 to dominate more easily, we expect that as σ increases, the I1-spread index will peak at a lower value and at an earlier time... We verify these statements with the model in Equation (1) and the parameter settings in Example 3"

    In Eq. (1), σ appears only in the I-to-J conversion terms: -σβ2 J_i I_i/(S+I+J) in dI_i/dt and +σβ2 I_i J_i/(S+I+J) in dJ_i/dt. Thus σ is defined as the rate at which pathogen 1 infections are converted into pathogen 2 infections. The reported 'finding' that larger σ lowers the I1 peak and accelerates pathogen-2 dominance is simply the sign of this term. Verifying it by simulating the same equation is a restatement of the model definition, not an independent prediction.

  2. self definitional [Section IV.E, Equation (2)]
    "For the MBRD-CI model in Equation (2), we expect that as β12 increases, the probability that an individual will be co-infected will increase, resulting in the C-spread index reaching 1 sooner. We see this occurs in Figure 15"

    In Eq. (2), β12 is the coefficient of the positive co-infection source term β12 C_i S_i/(S+I+J-C) in dC_i/dt, and it appears with negative signs in the mono-infection equations. The statement that larger β12 makes the C-spread index reach 1 sooner is the definitional sign of the co-transmission coefficient. The simulation cannot provide independent evidence for an effect that is written into the equation as the very meaning of β12.

2 more flagged steps
  1. self definitional [Abstract / main results; Equation (2)]
    "Moreover, lower removal rates of co-infected individuals can increase endemicity of co-infections."

    In Eq. (2), α12 enters dC_i/dt only through the term -(γ1+γ2+α12)C_i - μC_i. Therefore lowering α12 increases dC_i/dt by construction. The advertised relationship between the co-infected removal rate and co-infection endemicity is the sign of a linear term in the ODE, not an emergent simulation result.

  2. self definitional [Section IV.F, Tables I-II; Equation (1)-(2)]
    "It is expected that lowering the migration of infected individuals will help mitigate the diffusion of infections to other areas. We confirm this with Table I"

    In Eqs. (1)-(2), spatial spread of infected compartments is carried exclusively by the diffusion terms d22 Σ L(I)_ij I_j and d33 Σ L(J)_ij J_j. 'Lowering migration of infected individuals' is implemented by reducing these diffusion couplings or the relevant layer degrees. The containment effect is therefore the definition of the diffusion operator; reducing the infected-diffusion term cannot fail to slow infected spread in the simulations.

full rationale

The paper is a simulation study built on the MBRD-SI and MBRD-CI equations from the authors' companion paper [10]. Several of the headline 'results' are not emergent: the superinfection parameter σ appears in Eq. (1) with a fixed sign converting I into J; the co-transmission coefficient β12 appears in Eq. (2) as the positive source of C; the co-infection removal rate α12 appears only negatively in dC/dt; and reducing infected migration is literally reducing the d22/d33 diffusion terms. The paper's own wording ('we expect... we verify') acknowledges that these are model-built expectations, so the simulations cannot validate them independently. The central hotspot-growth/collapse claim is not purely definitional, because it comes from specific numerical examples and involves nonlinear interactions; however, it is weakened by the hand-picked parameter sets (Examples 1 and 2 use negative cross-diffusion, d12=d13=-0.2, and a large d33=4.8, which the paper itself says 'help induce pattern formation') and by the zero-clamp used in integration, which makes density-zero 'collapse' an absorbing state by construction. No robustness sweep or unclipped comparison is reported. Self-citation to [10] is not load-bearing for the simulation outcomes, since the equations are restated and the simulations are self-contained; but the Turing-instability interpretation is cited to the authors' own prior paper without independent verification here. Overall, several headline predictions are equivalent to the model's definitions, giving a partial circularity score of 6.

Assumptions & free parameters 9 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the MBRD-SI and MBRD-CI equations taken from the companion paper [10], plus the specific parameter choices and network constructions in the examples. No parameters are fitted to real-world data; the fitted curves are summaries of simulation outputs. The comparison with epidemiological data is qualitative and uses coarse categorical bins.

free parameters (9)
  • Example 1 parameter set (MBRD-SI) = µ=0.005, r=0.1, A=0.1, K=1, β1=0.3, β2=0.15, σ=3, γ1=0.02, γ2=0.05, α1=0.02, α2=0.15, d11=0.1, d12=-0.2, d13=-0.2, d22=0
    Hand-picked to produce growing Turing hotspots in Section III.B; no justification given for epidemiological realism.
  • Example 2 parameter set (MBRD-CI) = µ=0.005, r=0.1, A=0.1, K=1, β1=0.3, β2=0.15, β10=0.1, β02=0.1, β12=0.05, γ1=0.02, γ2=0.05, α1=0.02, α2=0.15, α12=0.1, d1
    Hand-picked to produce maze-like Turing patterns in Section III.B.
  • Spread-index thresholds and initial densities = I0=J0=0.05, Ithres=Jthres=0.01, Cthres=0.005
    Arbitrary choices in Section IV.A to define active nodes; results depend on these values.
  • Figure 6 power-law fit coefficients = a=1847.5, b=-11.4349
    Fitted to average amplitude at t=50 over 30 trials for varying σ; no error bars.
  • Figure 7 Fourier fit coefficients = a0=5.4307, a1=-3.6143, b1=-1.3135, a2=0.2676, b2=0.7012, w=17.458
    Fitted to average amplitude at t=40 over 30 trials for varying β12; caption appears to have a typo (missing 'b2=').
  • Figure 12 fit coefficients = Fourier: a0=0.548, a1=0.3131, b1=0.3264, w=0.0107; linear: a=1.0318, b=183.5250
    Fitted to I1-peak value and I2-saturation time as functions of td.
  • Figure 13 fit coefficients = Power: a=-14.071, b=0.4964, c=282.6; linear: a=1.1441, b=229.25 and a=1.1382, b=227
    Fitted to saturation times vs td for co-infection model.
  • Figure 14 fit coefficients = Multiple power-law fits (a=0.2239, b=-0.1624, c=0.6318; a=13.285, b=-0.73, c=74.521; a=293.11, b=-0.1895, c=-115.36)
    Fitted to I1-peak value, I1-peak time, and I2-saturation time vs σ.
  • Figure 16 linear fit coefficients = a=1.0148, b=-0.2285
    Fitted to β12 threshold vs α12; the paper notes proving this relationship is future work.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Reaction-diffusion systems in Equations (1) and (2) accurately describe bi-pathogen dynamics on metapopulation networks.
    The models are taken from companion paper [10] without re-derivation or independent validation; all simulation conclusions inherit this assumption.
  • domain assumption Turing instability conditions derived in [10] carry over to finite lattice, WS, and BA networks used here.
    The paper interprets simulated patterns as Turing patterns based on the companion paper's linear stability analysis, but does not verify the dispersion relations on the finite networks.
  • domain assumption Co-infected individuals do not diffuse between regions.
    The MBRD-CI model's fourth layer has no edges (Section II), so C-density is spatially static except through local reactions; this could suppress or alter hotspot growth.
  • domain assumption The coarse categorical comparison with Recife and Jiangsu incidence data is a valid test of the model's spatial predictions.
    Section V bins incidences into four ordered categories and computes absolute differences; no statistical test or uncertainty quantification is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dynamics of Infection Spread and Hotspot Growth in Bi-Pathogen Networks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/25B5LXDE

@misc{pith2026250903374,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dynamics of Infection Spread and Hotspot Growth in Bi-Pathogen Networks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/25B5LXDE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.03374}
}
read the original abstract

Understanding the spatio-temporal evolution of epidemics with multiple pathogens requires not only new theoretical models but also careful analysis of their practical consequences. Building on the Multiplex Bi-Virus Reaction-Diffusion framework (MBRD) introduced in our companion paper, we investigate how the super-infection model (MBRD-SI) and the co-infection model (MBRD-CI) behave under different epidemiological and network conditions. Through numerical experiments, we study the effects of pathogen virulence, diffusion rates, and cross-diffusion on epidemic hotspot formation and long-term prevalence. Our results highlight the role of multiplex structure in amplifying or suppressing co-circulating infections, and provide quantitative insight into conditions that drive persistent epidemic patterns. Beyond epidemiology, these findings have broader implications for multiplex contagion processes such as information diffusion and malware propagation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.03374 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Multiplex network for both models, inspired by fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: The LA4 (left), LA12 (middle), and LA24 (right) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Spatial distribution of susceptible (first row), pathogen 1 infection densities (second row), and pathogen 2 infection [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (13 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Spatial distribution of densities on each layer at time [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Spatial distribution of susceptible (first row), pathogen 1 infection densities (second row), pathogen 2 infection densities [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: , we see that the average amplitude peaks ap￾proximately when β12 = 0.2. We also fit the relationship to a Fourier series as described in the caption of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: Layers with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: , and the progression of the I2-saturation time follows a linear relationship with the time td. We keep the same settings as before, but incorpo￾rate the MBRD-CI model from Equation (2) and the co￾infection parameters from Example 4. Again, we see that one mono-infect…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13: Saturation times of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: FIG. 16 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: FIG. 17: At [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_17.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    How spatial epi- demiology helps understand infectious human disease transmission

    Chia-Hsien Lin and Tzai-Hung Wen. How spatial epi- demiology helps understand infectious human disease transmission. Tropical Medicine and Infectious Disease , 7(8):164, 2022

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    Putting disease on the map: the early use of spot maps in the study of yellow fever

    Lloyd G Stevenson. Putting disease on the map: the early use of spot maps in the study of yellow fever. Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences , pages 226– 261, 1965

    work page 1965

  3. [3]

    Castro, Sun Kim, Lorena Barberia, Ana Fre- itas Ribeiro, Susie Gurzenda, Karina Braga Ribeiro, Erin Abbott, Jeffrey Blossom, Beatriz Rache, and Burton H

    Marcia C. Castro, Sun Kim, Lorena Barberia, Ana Fre- itas Ribeiro, Susie Gurzenda, Karina Braga Ribeiro, Erin Abbott, Jeffrey Blossom, Beatriz Rache, and Burton H. Singer. Spatiotemporal pattern of COVID-19 spread in brazil. Science, 372(6544):821–826, 2021. Epub 2021- Apr-14; print 21 May 2021

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    Modeling epidemics using cellular automata

    S Hoya White, A Mart ´ ın Del Rey, and G Rodr ´ ıguez S´ anchez. Modeling epidemics using cellular automata. Applied mathematics and computation , 186(1):193–202, 2007

    work page 2007

  5. [5]

    Modeling the spatiotemporal epidemic spreading of covid-19 and the impact of mobility and social distancing interventions

    Alex Arenas, Wesley Cota, Jes´ us G´ omez-Garde˜ nes, Ser- gio G´ omez, Clara Granell, Joan T Matamalas, David Soriano-Pa˜ nos, and Benjamin Steinegger. Modeling the spatiotemporal epidemic spreading of covid-19 and the impact of mobility and social distancing interventions. Physical Review X , 10(4):041055, 2020. 19

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    Bayesian spatio-temporal modelling for infectious disease outbreak detection

    Matthew Adeoye, Xavier Didelot, and Simon EF Spencer. Bayesian spatio-temporal modelling for in- fectious disease outbreak detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.01456, 2025

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    On spatially explicit models of cholera epidemics

    Enrico Bertuzzo, Renato Casagrandi, Marino Gatto, I Rodriguez-Iturbe, and Andrea Rinaldo. On spatially explicit models of cholera epidemics. Journal of the Royal Society Interface, 7(43):321–333, 2010

    work page 2010

  8. [8]

    On a cross- diffusion system modeling vegetation spots and strips in a semi-arid or arid landscape

    Hong-Ming Yin, Xinfu Chen, and Lihe Wang. On a cross- diffusion system modeling vegetation spots and strips in a semi-arid or arid landscape. Nonlinear Analysis, 159:482– 491, 2017

    work page 2017

Show all 45 references
  1. [9]

    Running pulses of complex shape in a reaction-diffusion model

    ES Lobanova and FI Ataullakhanov. Running pulses of complex shape in a reaction-diffusion model. Physical review letters, 93(9):098303, 2004

    2004

  2. [10]

    Schaposnik

    Alyssa Yu and Laura P. Schaposnik. Spatial super- infection and co-infection dynamics in networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.15740, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Local popula- tion and regional environmental drivers of cholera in bangladesh

    Michael Emch, Mohammad Yunus, Veronica Escamilla, Caryl Feldacker, and Mohammad Ali. Local popula- tion and regional environmental drivers of cholera in bangladesh. Environmental Health, 9(1):2, 2010

    2010

  4. [12]

    Persistent spatial patterns of interacting conta- gions

    Li Chen. Persistent spatial patterns of interacting conta- gions. Physical Review E , 99(2):022308, 2019

    2019

  5. [13]

    Fundamental properties of cooperative contagion pro- cesses

    Li Chen, Fakhteh Ghanbarnejad, and Dirk Brockmann. Fundamental properties of cooperative contagion pro- cesses. New Journal of Physics , 19(10):103041, nov 2017

    2017

  6. [14]

    Q fever: single-point source outbreak with high attack rates and massive numbers of undetected infec- tions across an entire region

    Volker H Hackert, Wim van der Hoek, Nicole Dukers- Muijrers, Arnout de Bruin, Sascha Al Dahouk, Heinrich Neubauer, Cathrien A Bruggeman, and Christian JPA Hoebe. Q fever: single-point source outbreak with high attack rates and massive numbers of undetected infec- tions across ...

    2012

  7. [15]

    A point- source outbreak of campylobacteriosis associated with consumption of raw milk

    Jack A Korlath, Michael T Osterholm, Lawrence A Judy, Jan C Forfang, and R Ashley Robinson. A point- source outbreak of campylobacteriosis associated with consumption of raw milk. Journal of infectious diseases , 152(3):592–596, 1985

    1985

  8. [16]

    Collec- tive dynamics of ˆ a€˜small-worldˆ a€™networks

    Duncan J Watts and Steven H Strogatz. Collec- tive dynamics of ˆ a€˜small-worldˆ a€™networks. nature, 393(6684):440–442, 1998

    1998

  9. [17]

    Scale-free networks

    Albert-L´ aszl´ o Barab´ asi and Eric Bonabeau. Scale-free networks. Scientific american, 288(5):50–9, 2003

    2003

  10. [18]

    Emergence of a small world from local interactions: Mod- eling acquaintance networks

    J¨ orn Davidsen, Holger Ebel, and Stefan Bornholdt. Emergence of a small world from local interactions: Mod- eling acquaintance networks. Physical review letters , 88(12):128701, 2002

    2002

  11. [19]

    The small-world phenomenon: An algo- rithmic perspective

    Jon Kleinberg. The small-world phenomenon: An algo- rithmic perspective. In Proceedings of the thirty-second annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing , pages 163–170, 2000

    2000

  12. [20]

    Scale-free characteristics of random networks: the topology of the world-wide web

    Albert-L´ aszl´ o Barab´ asi, R´ eka Albert, and Hawoong Jeong. Scale-free characteristics of random networks: the topology of the world-wide web. Physica A: statistical mechanics and its applications , 281(1-4):69–77, 2000

    2000

  13. [21]

    Community evolution in international migration top1 networks

    Mihaela Peres, Helian Xu, and Gang Wu. Community evolution in international migration top1 networks. PloS one, 11(2):e0148615, 2016

    2016

  14. [22]

    Scale-free human migration and the geogra- phy of social networks

    Moshe Levy. Scale-free human migration and the geogra- phy of social networks. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications , 389(21):4913–4917, 2010

    2010

  15. [23]

    Spatiotemporal analysis of covid-19 spread with emerging hotspot anal- ysis and space–time cube models in east java, indone- sia

    Purwanto Purwanto, Sugeng Utaya, Budi Handoyo, Syamsul Bachri, Ike Sari Astuti, Kresno Sastro Ban- gun Utomo, and Yulius Eka Aldianto. Spatiotemporal analysis of covid-19 spread with emerging hotspot anal- ysis and space–time cube models in east java, indone- sia. ISPRS Intern...

    2021

  16. [24]

    Navigating epidemic spread through multiplex networks: Unveiling turing in- stability and cross-diffusion dynamics

    Bingrui Zhao and Jianwei Shen. Navigating epidemic spread through multiplex networks: Unveiling turing in- stability and cross-diffusion dynamics. Physica A: Statis- tical Mechanics and its Applications , 660:130312, 2025

    2025

  17. [25]

    Competition-exclusion and coexistence in a two-strain sis epidemic model in patchy environments

    Jonas T Doumat` e, Tahir B Issa, and Rachidi B Salako. Competition-exclusion and coexistence in a two-strain sis epidemic model in patchy environments. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.10348, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Turing patterns of an si epidemic model with cross-diffusion on complex networks

    Moran Duan, Lili Chang, and Zhen Jin. Turing patterns of an si epidemic model with cross-diffusion on complex networks. Physica A: statistical mechanics and its appli- cations, 533:122023, 2019

    2019

  19. [27]

    Improving the real- ism of deterministic multi-strain models: implications for modelling influenza a

    Pavlo Minayev and Neil Ferguson. Improving the real- ism of deterministic multi-strain models: implications for modelling influenza a. Journal of The Royal Society In- terface, 6(35):509–518, 2009

    2009

  20. [28]

    Os- cillation quenching mechanisms: Amplitude vs

    Aneta Koseska, Evgeny Volkov, and J¨ urgen Kurths. Os- cillation quenching mechanisms: Amplitude vs. oscilla- tion death. Physics Reports, 531(4):173–199, 2013

    2013

  21. [29]

    Modeling social cohesion with coupled oscillators: Syn- chrony and fragmentation

    Laura P Schaposnik, Sheryl Hsu, and Robin IM Dunbar. Modeling social cohesion with coupled oscillators: Syn- chrony and fragmentation. Chaos, Solitons & Fractals , 198:116509, 2025

    2025

  22. [30]

    Pattern formation of network epidemic model and its application in oral medicine

    Linhe Zhu, Yue Li, Le He, and Shuling Shen. Pattern formation of network epidemic model and its application in oral medicine. Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine, 264:108688, 2025

    2025

  23. [31]

    Online rumor diffusion model based on variation and silence phenomenon in the context of covid-

    Chunhua Ju, Yihao Jiang, Fuguang Bao, Bilin Zou, and Chonghuan Xu. Online rumor diffusion model based on variation and silence phenomenon in the context of covid-

  24. [32]

    Frontiers in Public Health , 9:788475, 2022

    2022

  25. [33]

    Study on tourism flow network patterns on may day holiday

    Shanshan Wu, Lucang Wang, and Haiyang Liu. Study on tourism flow network patterns on may day holiday. Sustainability, 13(2):947, 2021

    2021

  26. [34]

    A high-resolution human contact network for infectious disease transmission

    Marcel Salath´ e, Maria Kazandjieva, Jung Woo Lee, Philip Levis, Marcus W Feldman, and James H Jones. A high-resolution human contact network for infectious disease transmission. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences, 107(51):22020–22025, 2010

    2010

  27. [35]

    How a school holiday led to per- sistent covid-19 outbreaks in europe

    Bj¨ orn Thor Arnarson. How a school holiday led to per- sistent covid-19 outbreaks in europe. Scientific Reports, 11(1):24390, 2021

    2021

  28. [36]

    Public holidays in- creased the transmission of covid-19 in japan, 2020- 2021: a mathematical modelling study

    Jiaying Qiao and Hiroshi Nishiura. Public holidays in- creased the transmission of covid-19 in japan, 2020- 2021: a mathematical modelling study. Epidemiology and Health, 46:e2024025, 2024

    2020

  29. [37]

    Co-infection alters population dynamics of infec- tious disease

    Hanna Susi, Benoit Barr` es, Pedro F Vale, and Anna-Liisa Laine. Co-infection alters population dynamics of infec- tious disease. Nature communications, 6(1):5975, 2015

    2015

  30. [38]

    Spatial analysis of tuberculosis, covid-19, and tuberculosis/covid-19 coinfection in recife, pe, brazil

    Alene Bezerra Ara´ ujo Silva, Wayner Vieira de Souza, Jos´ e Constantino Silveira J´ unior, Juliana Silva de Santana, and Ricardo Arraes de Alencar Ximenes. Spatial analysis of tuberculosis, covid-19, and tuberculosis/covid-19 coinfection in recife, pe, brazil. In- ternational...

    2025

  31. [39]

    Z. Wu, G. Fu, Q. Wen, Z. Wang, L. E. Shi, B. Qiu, and J. Wang. Spatiotemporally comparative analysis of hiv, pulmonary tuberculosis, hiv-pulmonary tuberculosis coinfection in jiangsu province, china. Infection and Drug Resistance, 16:4039–4052, Jun 23 2023

    2023

  32. [40]

    Assessing the role of quarantine and isolation 20 as control strategies for covid-19 outbreak: a case study

    Zaibunnisa Memon, Sania Qureshi, and Bisharat Rasool Memon. Assessing the role of quarantine and isolation 20 as control strategies for covid-19 outbreak: a case study. Chaos, Solitons & Fractals , 144:110655, 2021

    2021

  33. [41]

    Im- pact of quarantine on the 2003 sars outbreak: a retro- spective modeling study

    Ying-Hen Hsieh, Chwan-Chuan King, Cathy WS Chen, Mei-Shang Ho, Sze-Bi Hsu, and Yi-Chun Wu. Im- pact of quarantine on the 2003 sars outbreak: a retro- spective modeling study. Journal of theoretical biology , 244(4):729–736, 2007

    2003

  34. [42]

    Quarantine for pandemic influenza control at the bor- ders of small island nations

    Hiroshi Nishiura, Nick Wilson, and Michael G Baker. Quarantine for pandemic influenza control at the bor- ders of small island nations. BMC infectious diseases , 9(1):27, 2009

    2009

  35. [43]

    En- vironmental and social factors impacting on epidemic and endemic tuberculosis: a modelling analysis

    Chacha M Issarow, Nicola Mulder, and Robin Wood. En- vironmental and social factors impacting on epidemic and endemic tuberculosis: a modelling analysis. Royal Soci- ety open science , 5(1):170726, 2018

    2018

  36. [44]

    Op- timal control strategies for the transmission risk of covid-

    Legesse Lemecha Obsu and Shiferaw Feyissa Balcha. Op- timal control strategies for the transmission risk of covid-

  37. [45]

    Journal of biological dynamics , 14(1):590–607, 2020

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.