CAN CULLING TO PREVENT MONKEYPOX INFECTION BE COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE? SCENARIOS FROM A THEORETICAL MODEL
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the last two decades, monkeypox outbreaks in human populations in Africa and North America have reminded us that smallpox is not the only poxvirus with potential to cause harm in human populations. Monkeypox transmission is sustained in animal reservoirs, and animal–human contacts are responsible for sporadic outbreaks in humans. Here, we develop and analyze a deterministic epizootic (animal-based) transmission model capturing disease dynamics in an animal population, disease dynamics in an age-structured human population, and their coupling through animal–human contacts. We develop a single-patch model as well as a two-patch meta-population extension. We derive mathematical expressions for the basic reproduction number, which governs the likelihood of a large outbreak. We also investigate the effectiveness of culling strategies and the impact of changes in the animal–human contact rate. Numerical analysis of the model suggests that, for some parameter values, culling can actually have the counter-productive outcome of increasing monkeypox infection in children, if animal reproduction is a density-dependent process. The likelihood of this happening, as well as the prevalence of monkeypox in humans, depends sensitively on the animal–human contact rate. We also find that ignoring age structure in human populations can lead to overestimating the transmissibility of monkeypox in humans. The effectiveness of monkeypox control strategies such as culling can strongly depend on the details of demography and epidemiology in the animal reservoirs that sustain it. Therefore, to better understand how to prevent and control monkeypox outbreaks in humans, better empirical data from wild animal populations where monkeypox is endemic must be collected, and these data must be incorporated into highly structured theoretical models.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".