Exploring Zika's dynamics: A scoping review journey from epidemic to equations through mathematical modelling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Zika virus (ZIKV) infection, along with the concurrent circulation of other arboviruses, presents a great public health challenge, reminding the utilization of mathematical modelling as a crucial tool for explaining its intricate dynamics and interactions with co-circulating pathogens. Through a scoping review, we aimed to discern current mathematical models investigating ZIKV dynamics, focusing on its interplay with other pathogens, and to identify underlying assumptions and deficiencies supporting attention, particularly regarding the epidemiological attributes characterizing Zika outbreaks. Following the PRISMA-Sc guidelines, a systematic search across PubMed, Web of Science, and MathSciNet provided 137 pertinent studies from an initial pool of 2446 papers, showing a diversity of modelling approaches, predominantly centered on vector-host compartmental models, with a notable concentration on the epidemiological landscapes of Colombia and Brazil during the 2015-2016 Zika epidemic. While modelling studies have been important in explaining Zika transmission dynamics and their intersections with diseases such as Dengue, Chikungunya, and COVID-19 so far, future Zika models should prioritize robust data integration and rigorous validation against diverse datasets to improve the accuracy and reliability of epidemic prediction. In addition, models could benefit from adaptable frameworks incorporating human behavior, environmental factors, and stochastic parameters, with an emphasis on open-access tools to foster transparency and research collaboration.
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 | 0.006 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".