Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 5 minor 55 references

Tracking dynamics of superspreading through contacts, exposures, and transmissions in edge-based network epidemics

T0 review · 1 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In SIR epidemics on random networks, all three superspreading metrics peak in less than half the time to peak infection prevalence, so contact-based control is most effective at the very start of an outbreak.

desk verdict Solid, genuinely new analytic account of time-varying superspreading in network SIR; but Theorem 5's strict inequality is unsupported — their own asymptotics give the limit equal to the stated bound, so '≤' is the defensible statement. read the letter →

arxiv 2601.17763 v1 pith:NQ22BJTA submitted 2026-01-25 q-bio.PE

Ari S. Freedman , Bjarke F. Nielsen , Maximillian M. Nguyen , Laurent Hébert-Dufresne , Simon A. Levin This is my paper · ORCID
classification q-bio.PE MSC 92D3005C82
keywords superspreadingSIRepidemiccontactnetworksedge-basedmodelinfecteddegreedistributioneffectivesecondarycasepeaktime
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 whether the role of superspreading changes over the course of an epidemic and provides exact mathematical answers for SIR epidemics on static random networks. It defines three time-varying statistics: the average number of contacts of infected individuals, the average number of susceptible contacts, and the average number of secondary transmissions caused by newly infected individuals. The central finding is that all three statistics peak earlier than the population-level infection peak, with the infected-degree peak occurring in less than half the time to peak prevalence. This implies that superspreading is already waning as an epidemic approaches its worst phase, which has practical consequences for when contact-based interventions are worth deploying and for how dispersion estimates from different data sources should be interpreted.

What carries the argument

The edge-based SIR model for static configuration networks, expressed through probability-generating functions ψ(θ) and φ(y), together with the newly defined infected-degree, effective-degree, and secondary-case distributions X(t), E(t), and Z(t). The central identity is the moment equation ṁ_n = -(J/I)(m_n - φ^(n+1)(log θ)/φ'(log θ)), where J/I is the infection turnover rate; this shows that every moment of the infected-degree distribution is continuously attracted to the corresponding moment of the neighbor-degree distribution, and the rate of that attraction controls the timing of the superspreading peak.

What would settle it

Run the model on a highly clustered or assortative network with the same degree distribution and measure the ratio of the superspreading peak time to the prevalence peak time; if the observed ratio equals or exceeds 1/2 - γ/(4(β+γ)(R0-1)+2γ), the configuration-model assumption is violated and the central claim fails. A simpler check is a simulation on a small-world network with the same degree sequence.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper proves that, in the limit of a small uniformly random initial infection on a large configuration-model network, the mean degree of infected nodes (the superspreading peak m(t)) peaks at a time t_m that satisfies 0 < lim t_m/t_I < 1/2 - γ/(4(β+γ)(R0-1)+2γ), where t_I is the peak time of infection prevalence and R0 the basic reproduction number. The mean effective degree (susceptible neighbors of infected nodes) peaks even earlier, before t_m, and the mean secondary-case distribution peaks at t=0 and decreases monotonically under a log-convexity condition. These results formalize and quantify the intuition that infections cascade from high-degree to low-degree nodes, so the potential

Load-bearing premise

The core results assume the contact network is a large random graph with no clustering, no degree correlations, and no short cycles, and that the initial infections are uniformly random; real networks with household or workplace structure, or with seeding biased toward high-degree individuals, may not obey the exact peak-time inequality.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Contact-based control strategies that target high-degree individuals are best deployed as early as possible, before the potential for superspreading has already declined, and may be much less effective once incidence approaches its peak.
  • Estimates of dispersion from incidence, contact tracing, or mobility data will differ systematically depending on whether they track transmissions, exposures, or contacts, and on the time window over which they are aggregated, because the three metrics peak at different times.
  • The mean secondary-case distribution decreases from the start (when ψ' is log-convex), so the effective reproduction number measured later in an epidemic will be lower and may understate the early superspreading that drove the outbreak.
  • The infected-degree distribution at the superspreading peak equals the neighbor-degree distribution, giving concrete predictions: for a Poisson network the infected degree is approximately Poisson shifted by one, and for a negative-binomial network it is approximately negative binomial shifted by one.
  • Since the superspreading peak occurs before the infection peak, epidemic phases defined by rising or falling incidence are not aligned with the phases of superspreading importance; using the superspreading peak to define phases could improve inference and intervention design.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The peak-time bound is proven for static configuration-model networks; on real clustered or dynamic contact networks the ratio t_m/t_I could be larger or smaller. A natural test is to simulate SIR on empirical networks with the same degree sequence and check whether the superspreading peak still precedes half the prevalence peak.
  • Because the small-seed limit sends both t_m and t_I to infinity while keeping their ratio bounded away from zero, the bound is an asymptotic statement; finite outbreaks with larger seed fractions may show a different ratio, and simulation studies varying the initial seed size could map this boundary.
  • The monotone decrease of the secondary-case mean implies that the most overdispersed phase is the earliest one, so case data collected after an outbreak is formally detected may systematically miss the phase where superspreading matters most; early outbreak-size data are the most informative for estimating the dispersion parameter.
  • The framework's generating-function approach could be extended to time-varying effective reproduction numbers on networks and to SIS or SEIR dynamics, provided the moment attraction structure is preserved; such extensions would need to check whether the peak-time inequality continues to hold.
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

1 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies SIR epidemics on static configuration-model networks using the edge-based model of Miller and Volz. It defines three time-dependent measures of superspreading potential: the mean degree of infected nodes m(t), the mean number of susceptible neighbors of infected nodes m_E(t), and the mean number of secondary cases generated by nodes newly infected at time t, m_Z(t). For each measure, the authors derive closed-form expressions or differential equations, characterize peak times and peak values, and give limiting behavior. The central quantitative claim is that the superspreading peak time t_m of m(t) is less than half the prevalence peak time t_I, with a tighter bound stated in Theorem 5, and that m_E and m_Z peak no later than t_m. The analytic results are supported by configuration-model simulations on Poisson and negative-binomial networks, and code is provided.

Significance. If the technical claims are correct, this is a useful contribution to network epidemic theory. The paper gives explicit, non-empirical formulas for how the composition of the infected population changes over time, and it connects those formulas to practical questions about when contact-based interventions are likely to be effective and how dispersion estimates depend on the data source. Strengths of the manuscript include the derivation of exact moment equations from a low-dimensional edge-based model, the explicit analytic formulas for peak values, the provided simulation code, and the careful discussion of limitations (uniform random initial infections, static configuration-model networks, negligible clustering). The main mathematical results are stated as theorems with proof sketches in the main text and fuller arguments in the supplement, and the simulation curves agree with the analytic trajectories. However, one of the headline theorems, Theorem 5, contains a strict inequality that is not supported by the authors' own asymptotic analysis; this must be corrected.

major comments (1)
  1. [Theorem 5, Eq. (25); Supplement Eq. (S38), Eq. (26), Eq. (S33)] The strict inequality in Theorem 5 appears false as stated. The supplement's Eq. (S38) gives t_m ~ [log(1/(1-θ0)) + O(1)]/(2λ1+γ), where λ1=(β+γ)(R0-1). The paper's own bounds for t_J, Eq. (26), together with the argument that t_I = t_J + O(1) (Eq. (S33) and surrounding text), imply t_J ~ t_I ~ log(1/(1-θ0))/λ1. Combining these gives lim t_m/t_I = λ1/(2λ1+γ), which is exactly equal to the right-hand side of Eq. (25), not strictly less than it. The statement should be corrected to a non-strict inequality, or better, to the equality of the limit with the displayed bound. The qualitative conclusion that t_m < t_I/2 survives, since the bound λ1/(2λ1+γ) is itself strictly less than 1/2. Because Theorem 5 is highlighted as a main result and used in Table 2 and the discussion, the theorem and all dependent statements need adjustment.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 2, m_E(t) row] The peak-time entry for m_E(t) is reversed relative to Theorem 8: it reads '0 if ν/µ >2, else >0 and < t_m', but Theorem 8 states the opposite (peak at 0 if ν/µ ≤2, and later peak if ν/µ >2).
  2. [Theorem 5 proof and Supplement] Multiple occurrences of the limit 'θ(0)→∞' should read 'θ(0)→1' (main text after Eq. (27) and Supplement proof of Theorem 5).
  3. [Theorem 8 proof, Eq. (44)] The sentence 'then the moving target will always to µ' appears to have a missing phrase; it should read 'will always be ≤ µ' or similar.
  4. [Supplement, Fig. S3 caption] The caption says 'effective degree distribution’s variance v_Z(t)', but v_Z is the variance of the secondary case distribution Z(t), not the effective degree distribution.
  5. [Theorem 10, Eq. (49)–(50)] The statement 'm_Z(0)<R0' is derived under log-convexity of ψ′; the wording in Table 2, 'm_Z(t)<R0 (if ψ′ log-convex)', is fine because m_Z is decreasing, but the main text should make the distinction between the general formula and the inequality under the log-convexity assumption explicit.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the superspreading metrics are derived from the external Miller–Volz edge-based model with no fitted parameters; self-citations are background, not load-bearing.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained relative to the external Miller–Volz edge-based model [21,29], which is not authored by the present authors. Theorem 1's moment equations follow by differentiating Eq. (17); m_E(t) and m_Z(t) are closed-form consequences of the definitions of H_j and ζ_t(s) (Eqs. (34), (38), (47)-(49)). No parameter is fit to simulation to produce the analytic curves; simulations are used only for validation. The paper explicitly lists its assumptions in the Assumptions section (static configuration-model network, uniform seeding, θ(0)≈1, existence of first three moments) and notes places where closed forms are unavailable, e.g., 'we are unable to derive a simple differential equation formulation for even its mean m_Z(t)' in the secondary case distribution section. These are limitations rather than disguised inputs. Self-citations (e.g., Refs [27], [40], [47], [48], [50], [53]) appear in the introduction/discussion as background or implications, not as load-bearing evidence for the main theorems; no uniqueness claim is imported from the authors' own prior work. The skeptic's concern about Theorem 5—that supplement Eq. (S38) gives t_m ~ log(1/(1−θ_0))/(2λ_1+γ), while Eq. (26) gives t_J at least ~ log(1/(1−θ_0))/λ_1, so the derived limit equals the stated upper bound λ_1/(2λ_1+γ) rather than being strictly less—is a mathematical correctness critique of the strict inequality, not a circularity: the bound is derived from the model equations rather than assumed. That issue affects the sharpness of the theorem, not whether the result reduces to its inputs by construction. Hence circularity score is low.

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

All model inputs (µ=5, R0=3, gamma=1, dispersion r) are specified for examples, not fitted; beta is derived from R0 via Eq. (6). No parameter is adjusted to make the analytic results match simulations. The three distributions X(t), E(t), Z(t) are derived quantities, not new entities.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The Miller–Volz edge-based model is exact for SIR epidemics on large configuration-model networks with negligible short cycles.
    Used throughout; the paper inherits Eqs. (1)–(7) from Refs. [21, 29].
  • domain assumption Initially infected nodes are a uniformly random sample, so X(0)=K and m(0)=mu.
    Assumed in 'Overview of the superspreading metrics'; needed for the initial condition of Theorem 1.
  • domain assumption Initial prevalence is infinitesimally small (theta(0)→1) for the peak-time theorems (3, 5, 8).
    States 'results apply ... assuming small initial infection limit' in Assumptions and in theorem statements.
  • domain assumption The degree distribution has finite first three moments, and psi' is log-convex for the Z(t) results.
    Assumptions section and Theorems 10–11; excludes power-law and finite-support degree distributions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Tracking dynamics of superspreading through contacts, exposures, and transmissions in edge-based network epidemics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NQ22BJTA

@misc{pith2026260117763,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Tracking dynamics of superspreading through contacts, exposures, and transmissions in edge-based network epidemics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NQ22BJTA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2601.17763}
}
read the original abstract

Infectious disease superspreading caused by heterogeneity in contact behavior has been observed to be an important determinant of epidemic dynamics and size in both empirical and theoretical settings. However, it has also been observed that the importance of this type of superspreading changes throughout an epidemic, generally in a decreasing manner as infections cascade from individuals with many contacts to those with fewer contacts. We provide an exact mathematical formulation of this phenomenon in strongly-immunizing (SIR) epidemics on static contact networks. Building on the edge-based modeling framework, we construct three metrics to track how superspreading changes through the course of an epidemic, respectively measuring infected nodes' contacts, exposures, and transmissions: (1) the mean degree of infected nodes, (2) the mean number of susceptible neighbors of infected nodes, and (3) the mean number of secondary cases that will be caused by newly infected nodes. We prove results about the behaviors of these metrics, highlighting the fact that their peak times all occur at less than half the time it takes for population-level infection prevalence to peak. This suggests that the importance of superspreading will be low when an epidemic is already near its peak, so contact-based control strategies are best employed as early in an outbreak as possible. We discuss implications for accurately measuring epidemiological parameters from incidence, mobility, contact tracing, and transmission data.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.17763 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Trajectories of infection prevalence in the three networks we use as examples, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Trajectories of the infected degree distribution’s mean [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The infected degree distribution at the beginning, superspreading peak, and end of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Trajectories of the effective degree distribution’s mean [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Trajectories of the secondary case distribution’s mean [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Peak times of I(t), m(t), mE(t), and mZ(t) for three different network degree distributions, and from both simulation (faint points in background, binned into multiples of .1 for mZ(t)) and analytic (solid lines) trajectories. The dashed red line shows the upper bound …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Analytic trajectories of the three superspreading metrics—the mean [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Series A, Containing Papers of a Mathematical and Physical Character115(772):700–721

    Kermack WO, McKendrick AG (1927) A contribution to the mathematical theory of epidemics.Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Containing Papers of a Mathematical and Physical Character115(772):700–721. Publisher: Royal Society

    1927

  2. [2]

    Cuddington K, Beisner BE

    Heesterbeek H (2005) 5 - THE LA W OF MASS-ACTION IN EPIDEMIOLOGY: A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE inEcological Paradigms Lost, Theoretical Ecology Se- ries, eds. Cuddington K, Beisner BE. (Academic Press, Burlington), pp. 81–105

    2005

  3. [3]

    Klovdahl AS (1985) Social networks and the spread of infectious diseases: The AIDS example.Social Science & Medicine21(11):1203–1216

    1985

  4. [4]

    Publisher: Nature Publishing Group

    Watts DJ, Strogatz SH (1998) Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’ networks.Nature 393(6684):440–442. Publisher: Nature Publishing Group

    1998

  5. [5]

    Publisher: American Physical Society

    Newman MEJ (2002) Spread of epidemic disease on networks.Physical Review E 66(1):016128. Publisher: American Physical Society

    2002

  6. [6]

    (2004) Modelling disease outbreaks in realistic urban social networks

    Eubank S, et al. (2004) Modelling disease outbreaks in realistic urban social networks. Nature429(6988):180–184. Publisher: Nature Publishing Group

    2004

  7. [7]

    (2009) Multiscale mobility networks and the spatial spreading of infec- tious diseases.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences106(51):21484–21489

    Balcan D, et al. (2009) Multiscale mobility networks and the spatial spreading of infec- tious diseases.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences106(51):21484–21489. Publisher: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

    2009

  8. [8]

    Publisher: Nature Publishing Group

    Lloyd-Smith JO, Schreiber SJ, Kopp PE, Getz WM (2005) Superspreading and the ef- fect of individual variation on disease emergence.Nature438(7066):355–359. Publisher: Nature Publishing Group

    2005

Show all 55 references
  1. [9]

    Publisher: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sci- ences

    Eames KTD, Keeling MJ (2002) Modeling dynamic and network heterogeneities in the spread of sexually transmitted diseases.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences99(20):13330–13335. Publisher: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sci- ences

    2002

  2. [10]

    Bauch C (2002) A versatile ODE approximation to a network model for the spread of sexually transmitted diseases.Journal of Mathematical Biology45(5):375–395

    2002

  3. [11]

    (Cambridge University, Cambridge, UK) Vol

    Barrat A, Barth´ elemy M, Vespignani A (2013)Dynamical Processes on Complex Net- works. (Cambridge University, Cambridge, UK) Vol. 37. Publisher: Routledge eprint: https://doi.org/10.1080/0022250X.2012.728886

    2013

  4. [12]

    Publisher: APS

    Marceau V, No¨ el PA, H´ ebert-Dufresne L, Allard A, Dub´ e LJ (2010) Adaptive networks: Coevolution of disease and topology.Physical Review E82(3):036116. Publisher: APS

    2010

  5. [13]

    Publisher: APS

    H´ ebert-Dufresne L, No¨ el PA, Marceau V, Allard A, Dub´ e LJ (2010) Propagation dy- namics on networks featuring complex topologies.Physical Review E82(3):036115. Publisher: APS

    2010

  6. [14]

    Publisher: American Physical Society

    Gleeson JP (2013) Binary-State Dynamics on Complex Networks: Pair Approximation and Beyond.Physical Review X3(2):021004. Publisher: American Physical Society

    2013

  7. [15]

    Ball F, Neal P (2008) Network epidemic models with two levels of mixing.Mathematical Biosciences212(1):69–87. 27

    2008

  8. [16]

    Lindquist J, Ma J, van den Driessche P, Willeboordse FH (2011) Effective degree net- work disease models.Journal of Mathematical Biology62(2):143–164

    2011

  9. [17]

    Physical Review E82(1)

    Karrer B, Newman MEJ (2010) Message passing approach for general epidemic models. Physical Review E82(1)

    2010

  10. [18]

    Sherborne N, Miller JC, Blyuss KB, Kiss IZ (2018) Mean-field models for non- Markovian epidemics on networks.Journal of Mathematical Biology76(3):755–778

    2018

  11. [19]

    Publisher: American Physical Society

    No¨ el PA, Davoudi B, Brunham RC, Dub´ e LJ, Pourbohloul B (2009) Time evolution of epidemic disease on finite and infinite networks.Physical Review E79(2):026101. Publisher: American Physical Society

    2009

  12. [20]

    Journal of Mathematical Biology56(3):293–310

    Volz E (2008) SIR dynamics in random networks with heterogeneous connectivity. Journal of Mathematical Biology56(3):293–310

    2008

  13. [21]

    Journal of Mathematical Biology62(3):349–358

    Miller JC (2011) A note on a paper by Erik Volz: SIR dynamics in random networks. Journal of Mathematical Biology62(3):349–358. Publisher: Springer

    2011

  14. [22]

    Annals of Epidemiology82:66–76.e6

    Brainard J, Jones NR, Harrison FCD, Hammer CC, Lake IR (2023) Super-spreaders of novel coronaviruses that cause SARS, MERS and COVID-19: a systematic review. Annals of Epidemiology82:66–76.e6

    2023

  15. [23]

    (2020) Full genome viral sequences inform patterns of SARS-CoV-2 spread into and within Israel.Nature Communications11(1):5518

    Miller D, et al. (2020) Full genome viral sequences inform patterns of SARS-CoV-2 spread into and within Israel.Nature Communications11(1):5518. Publisher: Nature Publishing Group

    2020

  16. [24]

    Endo A, Abbott S, Kucharski AJ, Funk S (2020) Estimating the overdispersion in COVID-19 transmission using outbreak sizes outside China.Wellcome Open Research

    2020

  17. [25]

    Lau MSY, et al. (2020) Characterizing superspreading events and age-specific infec- tiousness of SARS-CoV-2 transmission in Georgia, USA.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences117(36):22430–22435. Publisher: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

    2020

  18. [26]

    (2020) Superspreading events in the transmission dynam- ics of SARS-CoV-2: Opportunities for interventions and control.PLOS Biology 18(11):e3000897

    Althouse BM, et al. (2020) Superspreading events in the transmission dynam- ics of SARS-CoV-2: Opportunities for interventions and control.PLOS Biology 18(11):e3000897. Publisher: Public Library of Science

    2020

  19. [27]

    (2023) Host heterogeneity and epistasis explain punctuated evolution of SARS-CoV-2.PLOS Computational Biology19(2):e1010896

    Nielsen BF, et al. (2023) Host heterogeneity and epistasis explain punctuated evolution of SARS-CoV-2.PLOS Computational Biology19(2):e1010896. Publisher: Public Library of Science

    2023

  20. [28]

    eLife10:e63537

    Goyal A, Reeves DB, Cardozo-Ojeda EF, Schiffer JT, Mayer BT (2021) Viral load and contact heterogeneity predict SARS-CoV-2 transmission and super-spreading events. eLife10:e63537. Publisher: eLife Sciences Publications, Ltd

    2021

  21. [29]

    Publisher: Royal Society

    Miller JC, Slim AC, Volz EM (2012) Edge-based compartmental modelling for infectious disease spread.Journal of The Royal Society Interface9(70):890–906. Publisher: Royal Society

    2012

  22. [30]

    Andersson H (1997) Epidemics in a population with social structures.Mathematical Biosciences140(2):79–84. 28

    1997

  23. [31]

    Publisher: American Physical Society

    May RM, Lloyd AL (2001) Infection dynamics on scale-free networks.Physical Review E64(6):066112. Publisher: American Physical Society

    2001

  24. [32]

    Publisher: American Physical Society

    Pastor-Satorras R, Vespignani A (2002) Epidemic dynamics in finite size scale-free networks.Physical Review E65(3):035108. Publisher: American Physical Society

    2002

  25. [33]

    Publisher: Public Library of Science

    Großmann G, Backenk¨ ohler M, Wolf V (2021) Heterogeneity matters: Contact struc- ture and individual variation shape epidemic dynamics.PLOS ONE16(7):e0250050. Publisher: Public Library of Science

    2021

  26. [34]

    Britton T, Ball F, Trapman P (2020) A mathematical model reveals the influence of population heterogeneity on herd immunity to SARS-CoV-2.Science369(6505):846–

    2020

  27. [35]

    (2022) Individual variation in susceptibility or exposure to SARS- CoV-2 lowers the herd immunity threshold.Journal of Theoretical Biology540:111063

    Gomes MGM, et al. (2022) Individual variation in susceptibility or exposure to SARS- CoV-2 lowers the herd immunity threshold.Journal of Theoretical Biology540:111063

    2022

  28. [36]

    Publisher: IOP Publishing and SISSA

    Oz Y, Rubinstein I, Safra M (2021) Heterogeneity and superspreading effect on herd immunity.Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment2021(3):033405. Publisher: IOP Publishing and SISSA

    2021

  29. [37]

    (Princeton University Press)

    Diekmann O, Heesterbeek H, Britton T (2012)Mathematical Tools for Understanding Infectious Disease Dynamics. (Princeton University Press). Google-Books-ID: Xbn- tAQAAQBAJ

    2012

  30. [38]

    Number: 1 Publisher: Nature Publishing Group

    Leventhal GE, Hill AL, Nowak MA, Bonhoeffer S (2015) Evolution and emergence of infectious diseases in theoretical and real-world networks.Nature Communications 6(1):6101. Number: 1 Publisher: Nature Publishing Group

    2015

  31. [39]

    Publisher: Royal Society

    Kiss IZ, Green DM, Kao RR (2005) Infectious disease control using contact tracing in random and scale-free networks.Journal of The Royal Society Interface3(6):55–62. Publisher: Royal Society

    2005

  32. [40]

    Publisher: Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics

    Allard A, Moore C, Scarpino SV, Althouse BM, H´ ebert-Dufresne L (2023) The Role of Directionality, Heterogeneity, and Correlations in Epidemic Risk and Spread.SIAM Review65(2):471–492. Publisher: Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics

    2023

  33. [41]

    Barth´ elemy M, Barrat A, Pastor-Satorras R, Vespignani A (2005) Dynamical patterns of epidemic outbreaks in complex heterogeneous networks.Journal of Theoretical Bi- ology235(2):275–288

    2005

  34. [42]

    Miyama T, Jung Sm, Nishiura H (2022) Decrease in overdispersed secondary transmis- sion of COVID-19 over time in Japan.Epidemiology & Infection150:e197

    2022

  35. [43]

    (2023) A statistical framework for tracking the time-varying superspread- ing potential of COVID-19 epidemic.Epidemics42:100670

    Guo Z, et al. (2023) A statistical framework for tracking the time-varying superspread- ing potential of COVID-19 epidemic.Epidemics42:100670

    2023

  36. [44]

    (Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York), 2nd edi- tion

    Newman M (2018)Networks. (Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York), 2nd edi- tion

    2018

  37. [45]

    Kiss IZ, Kenah E, Rempa la GA (2023) Necessary and sufficient conditions for exact clo- sures of epidemic equations on configuration model networks.Journal of Mathematical Biology87(2):36. 29

    2023

  38. [46]

    Miller JC, Ting T (2019) EoN (Epidemics on Networks): a fast, flexible Python package for simulation, analytic approximation, and analysis of epidemics on networks.Journal of Open Source Software4(44):1731

    2019

  39. [47]

    Publisher: American Physical Society

    Nielsen BF, Simonsen L, Sneppen K (2021) COVID-19 Superspreading Suggests Mitiga- tion by Social Network Modulation.Physical Review Letters126(11):118301. Publisher: American Physical Society

    2021

  40. [48]

    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences118(14):e2016623118

    Sneppen K, Nielsen BF, Taylor RJ, Simonsen L (2021) Overdispersion in COVID-19 increases the effectiveness of limiting nonrepetitive contacts for transmission control. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences118(14):e2016623118. Publisher: Pro- ceedings of the National ...

    2021

  41. [49]

    Kain MP, Childs ML, Becker AD, Mordecai EA (2021) Chopping the tail: How pre- venting superspreading can help to maintain COVID-19 control.Epidemics34:100430

    2021

  42. [50]

    Publisher: Springer

    Boudreau MC, Allen AJ, Roberts NJ, Allard A, H´ ebert-Dufresne L (2023) Tempo- ral and probabilistic comparisons of epidemic interventions.Bulletin of Mathematical Biology85(12):118. Publisher: Springer

    2023

  43. [51]

    (2020) Clustering and superspreading potential of SARS-CoV-2 infec- tions in hong kong.Nature Medicine26(11):1714–1719

    Adam DC, et al. (2020) Clustering and superspreading potential of SARS-CoV-2 infec- tions in hong kong.Nature Medicine26(11):1714–1719. Publisher: Nature Publishing Group US New York

    2020

  44. [52]

    Publisher: European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control

    Riou J, Althaus CL (2020) Pattern of early human-to-human transmission of Wuhan 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), December 2019 to January 2020.Eurosurveillance 25(4):2000058. Publisher: European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control

    2020

  45. [53]

    (2021) The network epidemiology of an Ebola epidemic.arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.08686

    H´ ebert-Dufresne L, et al. (2021) The network epidemiology of an Ebola epidemic.arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.08686

    2021 arXiv

  46. [54]

    no dispersion

    Ko YK, et al. (2022) Secondary transmission of SARS-CoV-2 during the first two waves in Japan: Demographic characteristics and overdispersion.International Journal of Infectious Diseases116:365–373. Publisher: Elsevier. 30 Supplement to: Tracking dynamics of superspreading thr...

    2022

  47. [849]

    Publisher: American Association for the Advancement of Science

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.