↓ Skip to main content

Essential information: Uncertainty and optimal control of Ebola outbreaks

Overview of attention for article published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
19 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
42 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
46 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
119 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Essential information: Uncertainty and optimal control of Ebola outbreaks
Published in
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, May 2017
DOI 10.1073/pnas.1617482114
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shou-Li Li, Ottar N Bjørnstad, Matthew J Ferrari, Riley Mummah, Michael C Runge, Christopher J Fonnesbeck, Michael J Tildesley, William J M Probert, Katriona Shea

Abstract

Early resolution of uncertainty during an epidemic outbreak can lead to rapid and efficient decision making, provided that the uncertainty affects prioritization of actions. The wide range in caseload projections for the 2014 Ebola outbreak caused great concern and debate about the utility of models. By coding and running 37 published Ebola models with five candidate interventions, we found that, despite this large variation in caseload projection, the ranking of management options was relatively consistent. Reducing funeral transmission and reducing community transmission were generally ranked as the two best options. Value of information (VoI) analyses show that caseloads could be reduced by 11% by resolving all model-specific uncertainties, with information about model structure accounting for 82% of this reduction and uncertainty about caseload only accounting for 12%. Our study shows that the uncertainty that is of most interest epidemiologically may not be the same as the uncertainty that is most relevant for management. If the goal is to improve management outcomes, then the focus of study should be to identify and resolve those uncertainties that most hinder the choice of an optimal intervention. Our study further shows that simplifying multiple alternative models into a smaller number of relevant groups (here, with shared structure) could streamline the decision-making process and may allow for a better integration of epidemiological modeling and decision making for policy.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 42 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 119 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 119 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 28 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 20%
Student > Master 15 13%
Other 6 5%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 5%
Other 14 12%
Unknown 26 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 21 18%
Mathematics 12 10%
Environmental Science 10 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 4%
Other 25 21%
Unknown 37 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 172. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 January 2024.
All research outputs
#232,602
of 25,243,918 outputs
Outputs from Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
#4,360
of 102,629 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,771
of 316,072 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
#78
of 926 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,243,918 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 102,629 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 39.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 316,072 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 926 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.