| Title |
Comments on “A Mathematical Study to Control Visceral Leishmaniasis: An Application to South Sudan”
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Bulletin of Mathematical Biology, February 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11538-018-0403-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
E. Iboi, K. Okuneye, O. Sharomi, A. B. Gumel |
| Abstract |
Deterministic (ordinary differential equation) models for the transmission dynamics of vector-borne diseases that incorporate disease-induced death in the host(s) population(s) are generally known to exhibit the phenomenon of backward bifurcation (where a stable disease-free equilibrium of the model coexists with a stable endemic equilibrium when the associated reproduction number of the model is less than unity). Further, it is well known that, in these models, the phenomenon of backward bifurcation does not occur when the disease-induced death rate is negligible (e.g., if the disease-induced death rate is set to zero). In a recent paper on the transmission dynamics of visceral leishmaniasis (a disease vectored by sandflies), titled "A Mathematical Study to Control Visceral Leishmaniasis: An Application to South Sudan," published in Bulletin of Mathematical Biology, Vol. 79, Pages 1110-1134, 2017, Ghosh et al. (2017) stated that their deterministic model undergoes a backward bifurcation even when the disease-induced mortality in the host population is set to zero. This result is contrary to the well-established theory on the dynamics of vector-borne diseases. In this short note, we illustrate some of the key errors in the Ghosh et al. (2017) study. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 18 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 4 | 22% |
| Lecturer > Senior Lecturer | 3 | 17% |
| Professor | 2 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 11% |
| Other | 4 | 22% |
| Unknown | 1 | 6% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 28% |
| Mathematics | 4 | 22% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 6% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 6% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 2 | 11% |
| Unknown | 4 | 22% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 03 May 2018.
All research outputs
#15,508,366
of 23,047,237 outputs
Outputs from Bulletin of Mathematical Biology
#727
of 1,104 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#216,093
of 336,905 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Bulletin of Mathematical Biology
#23
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,047,237 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,104 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 336,905 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.