Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 37 references

Jointly estimating transmissibility and prior immunity from epidemic time series

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A conservation law for 'epidemic momentum' lets a single epidemic time series yield separate estimates of the basic reproduction number R0 and pre-epidemic immunity.

desk verdict The momentum method is real and the derivation checks out, but the Philadelphia numbers are hostage to the assumed CFP, so the paper's value is the method, not the point estimates. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.21657 v1 pith:TEL6ES2I submitted 2026-07-22 q-bio.PE q-bio.QM

David J. D. Earn , Todd L. Parsons This is my paper
classification q-bio.PEq-bio.QM MSC 92D30
keywords epidemicmomentumpriorimmunitybasicreproductionnumberrenewalequationconservationlawgenerationinterval1918influenzainference
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 establishes that fitting an epidemic model to an incidence curve need not conflate pathogen transmissibility with pre-existing population immunity. It introduces a conserved quantity called epidemic momentum—prevalence weighted by each infected person's remaining potential to transmit—whose peak value, combined with the initial growth rate, separates the basic reproduction number R0 from the pre-epidemic susceptible fraction. The authors derive an exact formula, R0 = V(1/L-)/y-hat, where V(u)=u-1-ln u, L- is the integral transform of the generation-interval distribution at the initial growth rate, and y-hat is the peak momentum. They validate the method on stochastic simulations and apply it to the autumn 1918 influenza wave in Philadelphia, estimating R0 ≈ 2.7 and about 20% prior immunity. If correct, this removes a long-standing ambiguity: researchers can estimate true transmissibility and baseline immunity from the same observed curve, provided the absolute scale of incidence is known.

What carries the argument

The central object is epidemic momentum, Y(t), a weighted prevalence in which each infected cohort is weighted by its remaining reproductive potential—the upper tail of the intrinsic generation-interval distribution. For SIR and SEIR models this coincides with total prevalence; in general it is a weighted prevalence. The loop-closing identity is the conservation law C(x,y)=y+(1/R0)V(R0 x) with V(u)=u-1-ln u, whose constant value is the maximum momentum y-hat. Because y-hat is directly observable from the incidence history and the generation-interval distribution, it provides the missing information that turns the composite product R0 x- into separately identifiable R0 and x-.

What would settle it

In an outbreak where pre-epidemic immunity is independently measured (e.g., by serology) and the reporting fraction is known, compute the momentum-based estimate of the susceptible fraction; if it disagrees with the independent measurement beyond the expected simulation error, one of the conservation law's supporting assumptions—mass-action transmission, known generation-interval distribution, or known incidence scale—is violated.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the maximum of epidemic momentum, y-hat, is the constant value of a conserved quantity that stays invariant along any epidemic trajectory governed by the renewal equation with mass-action transmission. At the pre-epidemic endpoint, where momentum is zero and the susceptible fraction is x-, evaluating the conserved quantity yields an exact expression for R0 in terms of the initial growth rate and y-hat alone, with no dependence on x-. The effective reproduction number from early growth then gives x- = 1/(R0 L-), and the final size follows from a symmetric relation at the falling tail via the principal branch of the inverse of z e^z. The paper shows the method rec

Load-bearing premise

The time series must be measured on an absolute per-capita scale, because the peak momentum used in the analysis scales linearly with that scale; without it the method cannot separately fix transmissibility and pre-existing immunity.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Epidemic time series can identify both R0 and pre-epidemic immunity, not just their product.
  • For the 1918 Philadelphia autumn wave, the method gives R0 ≈ 2.7 and z- ≈ 0.2, indicating substantial pre-existing immunity, plausibly from the spring herald wave.
  • Earlier estimates of R0 in Philadelphia that assumed fixed prior immunity are internally inconsistent with that assumption under the same generation-interval distribution, once the momentum relation is applied.
  • When the absolute incidence scale is unknown, the initial growth rate alone still gives a lower bound R0 ≥ 1/L- (≈ 2.16 for Philadelphia), independent of the reporting fraction.
  • Peak momentum occurs after peak incidence, so provisional estimates of R0 and prior immunity can be formed before the observed series peaks, especially when incidence is reconstructed from delayed outcomes.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same conservation law, applied to the falling tail of an epidemic, should reproduce the R0 and x- estimates obtained from the rising tail; using both tails could yield a consistency check that does not require the absolute incidence scale when both tails are observed.
  • Because the inferred prior immunity depends linearly on the absolute incidence scale, the method could be inverted to estimate an unknown reporting fraction: the scale that makes the implied x- agree with an independent serosurvey would be an estimate of ascertainment.
  • Since the momentum peak is reached early in the outbreak and before the peak of delayed observations like mortality, the approach is a candidate for real-time estimation of both transmissibility and baseline immunity as an epidemic unfolds.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper claims that epidemic momentum—prevalence weighted by remaining infectious potential—combined with the initial growth rate of an epidemic can identify the basic reproduction number R0 and the pre-epidemic susceptible fraction x− (equivalently prior immunity z− = 1−x−) separately from a single epidemic time series. The method is derived in the renewal-equation framework: Eq. (2.10) gives R0 = (1/ŷ) V(1/L−), where L− is the Laplace transform of the generation-interval distribution at the initial growth rate and ŷ is the peak epidemic momentum; Eq. (2.11) then gives x−. The approach is tested on stochastic SEIR simulations and applied to 1918 Philadelphia influenza mortality. The authors reconstruct incidence from mortality via deconvolution, assume CFP = 2%, and obtain R0 ≈ 2.71 and z− ≈ 0.203. The paper explicitly notes in §2.4 and §4.2 that absolute incidence scale is required, but the abstract and conclusions present the result without this caveat.

Significance. If the method is valid, it is a conceptually useful extension of the Wallinga–Lipsitch approach: the shape of the epidemic curve, through the maximum of epidemic momentum, carries information beyond the initial growth rate, potentially separating transmissibility from prior immunity. The derivation is transparent, the renewal-equation setting is general, and the stochastic simulation tests are a strength. The paper is also explicit about many of its limitations, including the need for an absolute incidence scale. However, the empirical headline is not robust: the Philadelphia estimates are essentially a rescaling of the assumed case-fatality proportion, and no uncertainty quantification is provided. These issues do not invalidate the method, but they require substantial revision of the claims and presentation.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.2, Eqs. (3.5), (3.8), (2.11)] The point estimates R0 ≈ 2.71 and z− ≈ 0.203 are direct functions of the assumed CFP. Eq. (3.5) gives R0 ≈ 135 × CFP, and with L− ≈ 0.464, Eq. (2.11) gives z− = 1 − 1/(135·CFP·L−). The internally admissible range from Frost, CFP ∈ [1.6%, 3.1%], yields R0 between ≈2.16 and ≈4.19 and z− between ≈0 and ≈0.49. Thus the headline 'about 20% already immune' is not an inference from the time series; it is an echo of the assumed CFP ≃ 2%. The paper acknowledges the scale dependence in §2.4 and §4.2, but the Abstract and Conclusions do not. A sensitivity table or figure over the CFP range, and over the generation-interval and deconvolution assumptions, is needed before the empirical claims can stand.
  2. [§3.2, §4.2] The paper presents no uncertainty quantification for the Philadelphia estimates. The method depends on deconvolution of mortality, estimation of the initial growth rate, the form and parameters of the generation-interval distribution, and the infection-to-death delay distribution, all of which are uncertain. The text in §4.2 that 'an important statistical challenge will be to develop robust confidence intervals' is not a substitute for reporting them or at least a sensitivity analysis in the current application. The simulation study (Figs. 1 and 2) shows point estimates and scatter, but no coverage or interval estimates; without this, 'estimating' R0 and x− is overstated. At minimum, a bootstrap or profile-likelihood analysis should accompany the empirical results.
  3. [Abstract and §4.4] The central claim as stated—that R0 and x− can be inferred 'from a single epidemic time series'—is too strong. As the authors note in §2.4, the absolute scale of incidence is required to identify ŷ. Without a known scale factor, an arbitrary multiplicative constant changes R0 and x− linearly, so the two quantities are not separately identifiable from a relative incidence curve. The abstract and conclusions should explicitly say 'absolutely scaled incidence' or 'given a known incidence scale.' Otherwise the reader may reasonably infer that mortality counts or other relative time series suffice, which is not the case.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (2.6)] The notation is confusing: ι(τ) is used both for incidence and for cumulative incidence in 'Writing ι(τ) = ∫ ...'. Use a different symbol (e.g., I(τ) or C(τ)) for cumulative incidence.
  2. [Figure 2 caption] The appearance of 'xi' without subscripts is ambiguous; use x_i or x− consistently.
  3. [§4.1 and Ref. [33]] Reference [33] is 'In preparation.' If the nonlinear-incidence extension is not available, it should be cited as a personal communication or removed; otherwise the reader cannot verify the claim in §4.3.
  4. [Appendix C] Appendix C is said to be identical to [5, Appendix F]. Consider citing the original rather than reproducing it, or at least make the duplication explicit in the main text.
  5. [§3.2] The lower bound R0 ≥ 2.16 is scale-independent and useful, but the paper could also note that no upper bound is available from the method without an assumed CFP; this reinforces the need for a sensitivity analysis.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Philadelphia prior-immunity estimate reduces algebraically to the assumed case-fatality proportion, so the central empirical 'estimate' is forced by an external input.

  1. other [Section 3.2, Eqs (3.3)-(3.8); Section 2.4]
    "The absolute scale of the incidence curve is required because ŷ, unlike λ− and L−, depends on that scale. ... Incidence must therefore be expressed as a fraction of the population, or the factor connecting the observed time series to incidence must be known or examined explicitly. ... R0≈135×CFP. ... We therefore use CFP≃2% as a representative value for Philadelphia. Substitution into Eq. (3.5) implies R0≈2.71. Equation (2.11) then gives z−≈0.203."

    With L−≈0.464, Eq. (2.11) gives z−=1−1/(R0 L−). Substituting Eq. (3.5), R0≈135×CFP, turns this into z−=1−1/(135·CFP·0.464). Thus the reported z−≈0.20 is a deterministic algebraic transform of the assumed CFP=2%, not an independent output of the epidemic time series. The time series enters only through L− and the fixed relative shape of momentum; the absolute scale—and hence R0 and z−—is set by an external assumption. Over the paper's own admissible range CFP∈[1.6%,3.1%], z− ranges from ≈0 to ≈0.49, so the headline 'about 20% already immune' is forced by the chosen CFP. The abstract's claim to estimate rather than assume prior immunity is therefore only conditionally true, and in this application the 'estimate' is equivalent to the assumed scale by construction.

full rationale

The mathematical core of the paper, Eqs. (2.8)-(2.10), is not itself circular: given an absolutely scaled incidence curve and the generation-interval distribution, the maximum epidemic momentum ŷ and the tail exponent λ− determine R0 and x− through a parameter-free conservation law. The conservation law is imported from the authors' companion preprint [5], but it is a stated, parameter-free mathematical identity consistent with the renewal equation given in §2.1, so by the independence rule it does not by itself raise the score. However, the Philadelphia application is a different matter. The paper acknowledges in §2.4 and §4.2 that ŷ changes with the unknown incidence scale, and Eq. (3.3) explicitly reintroduces CFP. Eq. (3.5) then makes R0 a linear function of CFP, and Eq. (2.11) makes z− a one-to-one function of CFP. Hence the empirical headline—R0≈2.7, z−≈0.20—is not inferred from the single epidemic time series in any scale-free way; it is the image of the assumed CFP≈2% under the paper's own formulas. This is a partial circularity of the 'fitted input called prediction' type (here an assumed external scale playing the role of a fitted input), and it affects the central advertised application, though not the method's validity when absolute incidence is known. Score 6 reflects a central empirical claim that reduces by construction to an external input, while the methodological derivation remains substantially independent.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The method's mathematical core relies on the renewal-equation mass-action framework and the conservation law from the authors' companion paper. The empirical application adds two external inputs that are not estimated from the Philadelphia time series: the case-fatality proportion (setting absolute incidence scale) and the generation-interval/latent-period parameters. The invented entities are derived observables rather than hidden mechanisms, but their conservation-law interpretation is the load-bearing postulate.

free parameters (3)
  • case-fatality proportion CFP = 0.02 (representative; Frost range 0.008–0.031)
    Converts reconstructed mortality-derived incidence to absolute incidence; Eq 3.5 gives R0≈135×CFP; z− inherits this scale. Chosen by hand from Frost/Northeastern group estimate, not estimated from the Philadelphia time series.
  • mean latent and infectious periods (ℓ = T_lat/T_inf) = 1.9 d / 4.1 d, ℓ=0.463
    Assumed following Mills et al.; enters g(α) and L−; not estimated here. A misspecified generation interval changes both Reff and momentum reconstruction (§4.2).
  • infection-to-death delay distribution (gamma parameters) = from empirical incubation and onset-to-death data via fastbeta (previous work)
    Used to deconvolve mortality into incidence; parameters were fitted in [6]/fastbeta and applied here; their uncertainty is not propagated.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Renewal equation with mass-action incidence (Eq 2.1), so incidence scales linearly with susceptible fraction X(τ).
    Central derivation and conservation law depend on this; §4.3 admits nonlinear susceptibility would modify relations.
  • domain assumption Conservation law C(x,y)=y + x̂ V(x/x̂) with conserved value ŷ (Eqs 2.8–2.9) from companion paper [5].
    Imported as a theorem from a self-cited preprint; not re-derived here. It is a parameter-free deterministic result under Eq 2.1.
  • domain assumption R0 and generation-interval distribution g(α) are constant; behaviour/reporting do not change during the focal period.
    Needed for exponential tails and conservation law; §4.3 says violations break conservation law ([5, Appendix J]).
  • domain assumption Early exponential growth approximates the unobserved incidence history (Eq 2.2, A2).
    Used to extrapolate before τ_i in momentum computation; approximation error is not quantified in the application.
  • standard math Euler–Lotka relation R0 x± = 1/L± (Eq 2.3).
    Standard renewal-theory identity.
  • domain assumption Observed P&I mortality is proportional to true incidence with constant CFP and delay distribution.
    Needed for Philadelphia application; underlying incidence reconstructed by Richardson–Lucy deconvolution.
invented entities (2)
  • epidemic momentum Y(τ) (weighted prevalence) independent evidence
    purpose: Weighted incidence by remaining reproductive potential; its maximum ŷ is the additional observable used to identify R0.
    Defined mathematically from observed incidence and g (Eq 2.5); in simulations it matches true prevalence; in Philadelphia it is reconstructed from data. Not an unobservable entity, but its conservation-law relation to R0 is the paper's central postulate.
  • conserved quantity C(x,y)=y+x̂V(x/x̂) independent evidence
    purpose: Provides the extra equation linking ŷ to R0 and x±.
    Derived in [5] and used to obtain Eq 2.10; its predictions are testable in the stochastic simulations and empirical application, though it is not directly observable.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Jointly estimating transmissibility and prior immunity from epidemic time series." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TEL6ES2I

@misc{pith2026260721657,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Jointly estimating transmissibility and prior immunity from epidemic time series},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TEL6ES2I}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.21657}
}
abstract

Infectious disease time series are often used to estimate a pathogen's basic reproduction number, $R_0$. However, fits of epidemic models to time series conflate pathogen transmissibility with pre-existing population immunity, so only the *effective* reproduction number, $R_{eff}$, can be inferred. This composite parameter is the product of the underlying $R_0$ and the pre-epidemic susceptible fraction, $x^-$. We show that a conservation law associated with epidemic momentum---prevalence weighted by potential to infect---makes it possible to disentangle transmissibility from prior immunity and to infer $R_0$ and $x^-$ separately from a single epidemic time series. We test the methodology using stochastic epidemic simulations, and illustrate the approach with a reappraisal of influenza transmissibility during the 1918 pandemic, estimating rather than assuming the degree of prior population immunity. For the autumn wave in Philadelphia, USA, we find $R_0\approx2.7$ and $x^-\approx0.8$, implying that about 20\% of the population was already immune before that wave, plausibly as a result of infection during the spring 1918 herald wave.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.21657 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Estimates of initial growth rate λ − and peak epidemic momentum yˆ from stochastic SEIR simulations. The top panels show the relative error in the initial growth rate λ − as a function of the true R0 specified in the simulations (with population size N = 105 on the left and N = 106 on the right). The exact value of λ − is given by the SEIR row in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Prior population immunity (z − = 1 − x − ) and basic reproduction number (R0) estimated from stochastic SEIR simulations. Exploiting the epidemic momen￾tum, we successfully disentangle and accurately estimate both z − and R0 . The top panels show the predicted pre-epidemic susceptible proportion x − , so the pre-existing level of pop￾ulation immunity is z − = 1 − x − [estimated via Eq. (2.11)]. The true x − associat… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. 1918 influenza pandemic in Philadelphia, USA. Daily deaths from pneu￾monia and influenza (P&I) were recorded from 1 September to 31 December 1918 [19]. We deconvolved the observed mortality time series to obtain estimated daily incidence ι(t), us￾ing an empirically estimated infection to death distribution: as detailed in previous work [6] and implemented in the fastbeta R package [20, 21], gamma distributions were … view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2007 How generation intervals shape the relationship be- tween growth rates and reproductive numbers.Proc

    Wallinga J, Lipsitch M. 2007 How generation intervals shape the relationship be- tween growth rates and reproductive numbers.Proc. R. Soc. B274, 599–604. (10.1098/rspb.2006.3754)

    arXiv 2007

  2. [2]

    2014 Estimating initial epidemic growth rates

    Ma J, Dushoff J, Bolker BM, Earn DJD. 2014 Estimating initial epidemic growth rates. Bull. Math. Biol.76, 245–260. (10.1007/s11538-013-9918-2)

    work page doi:10.1007/s11538-013-9918-2 2014

  3. [3]

    2020 Estimating epidemic exponential growth rate and basic reproduction num- ber.Infect

    Ma J. 2020 Estimating epidemic exponential growth rate and basic reproduction num- ber.Infect. Dis. Model.5, 129–141. (10.1016/j.idm.2019.12.009)

    doi:10.1016/j.idm.2019.12.009 2020

  4. [4]

    2009 Influenza: accounting for prior immunity.Science325, 1071

    McCaw JM, McVernon J, McBryde ES, Mathews JD. 2009 Influenza: accounting for prior immunity.Science325, 1071. (10.1126/science.325_1071a)

    work page doi:10.1126/science.325_1071a 2009

  5. [5]

    momentum

    Earn DJD, Parsons TL. 2025 Epidemic “momentum” and a conservation law for infec- tious disease dynamics. arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.01939

    arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    2009 Reconstructing influenza incidence by deconvolution of daily mortality time series.Proc

    Goldstein E, Dushoff J, Ma J, Plotkin J, Earn DJD, Lipsitch M. 2009 Reconstructing influenza incidence by deconvolution of daily mortality time series.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.106, 21825–21829. (10.1073/pnas.0902958106)

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.0902958106 2009

  7. [7]

    1927 A contribution to the mathematical theory of epidemics.Proc

    Kermack WO, McKendrick AG. 1927 A contribution to the mathematical theory of epidemics.Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A115, 700–721. (10.1098/rspa.1927.0118)

    arXiv 1927

  8. [8]

    2012 On the formulation of epidemic models (an appraisal of Kermack and McKendrick).J

    Breda D, Diekmann O, De Graaf WF, Pugliese A, Vermiglio R. 2012 On the formulation of epidemic models (an appraisal of Kermack and McKendrick).J. Biol. Dyn.6, 103–

    2012

Show all 37 references
  1. [9]

    2018 Equivalence of the Erlang SEIR epi- demic model and the renewal equation.SIAM J

    Champredon D, Dushoff J, Earn DJD. 2018 Equivalence of the Erlang SEIR epi- demic model and the renewal equation.SIAM J. Appl. Math.78, 3258–3278. (10.1137/18M1186411)

    2018 doi

  2. [10]

    2007 A note on generation times in epidemic models.Math

    Svensson A. 2007 A note on generation times in epidemic models.Math. Biosci.208, 300–311. (10.1016/j.mbs.2006.10.010)

    2007 doi

  3. [11]

    2015 Intrinsic and realized generation intervals in infectious- disease transmission.Proc

    Champredon D, Dushoff J. 2015 Intrinsic and realized generation intervals in infectious- disease transmission.Proc. R. Soc. B282, 20152026. (10.1098/rspb.2015.2026)

    2015

  4. [12]

    1925 On the True Rate of Natural Increase: As Exemplified by the Population of the United States, 1920.J

    Dublin LI, Lotka AJ. 1925 On the True Rate of Natural Increase: As Exemplified by the Population of the United States, 1920.J. Am. Stat. Assoc.20, 305–339. JSTOR stable DOI: 10.2307/2965517 (10.1080/01621459.1925.10503498)

    1925

  5. [13]

    1941 On the Integral Equation of Renewal Theory.Ann

    Feller W. 1941 On the Integral Equation of Renewal Theory.Ann. Math. Stat.12, 243–267. (10.1214/aoms/1177731708)

    1941

  6. [14]

    2005Applied Mathematical Demography

    Keyfitz N, Caswell H. 2005Applied Mathematical Demography. Statistics for Biol- ogy and Health. New York, NY: Springer 3 edition. Online ISBN: 978-0-387-27409-6 (10.1007/b139042) 21

    doi

  7. [15]

    2007 Seasonal dynamics of recurrent epidemics.Nature 446, 533–536

    Stone L, Olinky R, Huppert A. 2007 Seasonal dynamics of recurrent epidemics.Nature 446, 533–536. (10.1038/nature05638)

    2007 doi

  8. [16]

    2025 Global stability of epidemic models with uniform sus- ceptibility.Proc

    Earn DJD, McCluskey CC. 2025 Global stability of epidemic models with uniform sus- ceptibility.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.122, e2510156122. (10.1073/pnas.2510156122)

    2025 doi

  9. [17]

    2020 Acceleration of plague out- breaks in the second pandemic.Proc

    Earn DJD, Ma J, Poinar H, Dushoff J, Bolker BM. 2020 Acceleration of plague out- breaks in the second pandemic.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.117, 27703–27711. (10.1073/pnas.2004904117)

    2020 doi

  10. [18]

    2024epigrowthfit: Nonlinear Mixed Effects Models of Epidemic Growth

    Jagan M, Bolker B. 2024epigrowthfit: Nonlinear Mixed Effects Models of Epidemic Growth. R package version 0.15.3 (10.32614/cran.package.epigrowthfit)

    doi

  11. [19]

    1920Special Tables of Mortality from Influenza and Pneumonia, in Indiana, Kansas, and Philadelphia, PA

    Rogers SL. 1920Special Tables of Mortality from Influenza and Pneumonia, in Indiana, Kansas, and Philadelphia, PA. U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC

  12. [20]

    2020 Fast estimation of time-varying infectious disease transmission rates.PLoS Comput

    Jagan M, deJonge MS, Krylova O, Earn DJD. 2020 Fast estimation of time-varying infectious disease transmission rates.PLoS Comput. Biol.16, e1008124. (10.1371/jour- nal.pcbi.1008124)

    2020 doi

  13. [21]

    2025fastbeta: Fast Approximation of Time-Varying Infectious Disease Trans- mission Rates

    Jagan M. 2025fastbeta: Fast Approximation of Time-Varying Infectious Disease Trans- mission Rates. R package version 0.5.0 (10.32614/cran.package.fastbeta)

    doi

  14. [22]

    1979 An outbreak of influenza aboard a commercial airliner.Am

    Moser MR, Bender TR, Margolis HS, Noble GR, Kendal AP, Ritter DG. 1979 An outbreak of influenza aboard a commercial airliner.Am. J. Epidemiol.110, 1–6. (10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a112781)

    1979 doi

  15. [23]

    1918 The influenza epidemic in Chicago: The disease as a type of toxemic shock.JAMA71, 1962–1967

    Keeton RW, Cushman AB. 1918 The influenza epidemic in Chicago: The disease as a type of toxemic shock.JAMA71, 1962–1967. (10.1001/jama.1918.02600500012003)

    1918

  16. [24]

    2004 Transmissibility of 1918 pandemic influenza

    Mills CE, Robins JM, Lipsitch M. 2004 Transmissibility of 1918 pandemic influenza. Nature432, 904–906. (10.1038/nature03063)

    2004 doi

  17. [25]

    1920 Statistics of influenza morbidity with special reference to certain factors in case incidence and case fatality.Public Health Rep.35, 584–597

    Frost WH. 1920 Statistics of influenza morbidity with special reference to certain factors in case incidence and case fatality.Public Health Rep.35, 584–597. (10.2307/4575511)

    1920 doi

  18. [26]

    2008 Quantifying social distancing arising from pan- demic influenza.J

    Caley P, Philp DJ, McCracken K. 2008 Quantifying social distancing arising from pan- demic influenza.J. R. Soc. Interface5, 631–639. (10.1098/rsif.2007.1197)

    2008

  19. [27]

    2018 Characterising seasonal influenza epidemiology using primary care surveillance data.PLoS Comput

    Cope RC, Ross JV, Chilver M, Stocks NP, Mitchell L. 2018 Characterising seasonal influenza epidemiology using primary care surveillance data.PLoS Comput. Biol.14, e1006377. (10.1371/journal.pcbi.1006377)

    2018 doi

  20. [28]

    2026 Identifiability in Epidemic Models with Prior Immunity and Under-Reporting.Bull

    Bergström F, Favero M, Britton T. 2026 Identifiability in Epidemic Models with Prior Immunity and Under-Reporting.Bull. Math. Biol.88, 90. (10.1007/s11538-026-01656- w)

    2026 doi

  21. [29]

    1945 The law of mass action in epidemiology.Proc

    Wilson EB, Worcester J. 1945 The law of mass action in epidemiology.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.31, 24–34. (10.1073/pnas.31.1.24) 22

    1945 doi

  22. [30]

    1986 Influence of nonlinear incidence rates upon the behav- ior of SIRS epidemiological models.J

    Liu WM, Levin SA, Iwasa Y. 1986 Influence of nonlinear incidence rates upon the behav- ior of SIRS epidemiological models.J. Math. Biol.23, 187–204. (10.1007/bf00276956)

    1986 doi

  23. [31]

    2000 Time series modelling of childhood diseases: A dynam- ical systems approach.J

    Finkenstädt B, Grenfell B. 2000 Time series modelling of childhood diseases: A dynam- ical systems approach.J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. C Appl. Stat.49, 187–205. (10.1111/1467- 9876.00187)

    2000

  24. [32]

    2008 On the spread of epidemics in a closed heterogeneous population

    Novozhilov AS. 2008 On the spread of epidemics in a closed heterogeneous population. Math. Biosci.215, 177–185. (10.1016/j.mbs.2008.07.010)

    2008 doi

  25. [33]

    2026 Epidemic Momentum with Nonlinear Incidence

    Earn DJD, Parsons TL. 2026 Epidemic Momentum with Nonlinear Incidence. In prepa- ration

    2026

  26. [34]

    1996 On the Lambert W function.Adv

    Corless RM, Gonnet GH, Hare DEG, Jeffrey DJ, Knuth DE. 1996 On the Lambert W function.Adv. Comput. Math.5, 329–359. (10.1007/bf02124750)

    1996 doi

  27. [35]

    2025NIST Digital Library of Mathematical Functions

    DLMF. 2025NIST Digital Library of Mathematical Functions. https://dlmf.nist.gov/, Release 1.2.5 of 2025-12-15. F. W. J. Olver, A. B. Olde Daalhuis, D. W. Lozier, B. I. Schneider, R. F. Boisvert, C. W. Clark, B. R. Miller, B. V. Saunders, H. S. Cohl, and M. A. McClain, eds

    2025

  28. [36]

    1991Infectious Diseases of Humans: Dynamics and Control

    Anderson RM, May RM. 1991Infectious Diseases of Humans: Dynamics and Control. Oxford: Oxford University Press. (10.1093/oso/9780198545996.001.0001) 23

  29. [117]

    (10.1080/17513758.2012.716454)

    2012

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.