Using simulation modelling and systems science to help contain COVID‐19: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study systematically reviews applications of three simulation approaches, that is, system dynamics model (SDM), agent-based model (ABM) and discrete event simulation (DES), and their hybrids in COVID-19 research and identifies theoretical and application innovations in public health. Among the 372 eligible papers, 72 focused on COVID-19 transmission dynamics, 204 evaluated both pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical interventions, 29 focused on the prediction of the pandemic and 67 investigated the impacts of COVID-19. ABM was used in 275 papers, followed by 54 SDM papers, 32 DES papers and 11 hybrid model papers. Evaluation and design of intervention scenarios are the most widely addressed area accounting for 55% of the four main categories, that is, the transmission of COVID-19, prediction of the pandemic, evaluation and design of intervention scenarios and societal impact assessment. The complexities in impact evaluation and intervention design demand hybrid simulation models that can simultaneously capture micro and macro aspects of the socio-economic systems involved.
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 | 0.010 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".