Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 82 references

Optimal switching strategies in multi-drug therapies for chronic diseases

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A stochastic two-scale model derives exact mean times to drug resistance and maps when therapy switching helps, when it hurts, and when the best policy is to do nothing.

desk verdict Promising multi-drug switching framework, but the central Eq. (3) has an internal inconsistency in the definition of d that must be fixed before the quantitative results can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.16362 v2 pith:PYR7QEED submitted 2024-11-25 q-bio.PE cond-mat.stat-mechmath.DSphysics.bio-ph

Juan Magalang , Javier Aguilar , Jose Perico Esguerra , Édgar Roldán , Daniel Sanchez-Taltavull This is my paper · ORCID
classification q-bio.PEcond-mat.stat-mechmath.DSphysics.bio-ph MSC 60J7060J2892C60
keywords antimicrobialresistancetherapyswitchingstochasticresettingfirstpassagetimemulti-drugdevelopmentmasterequationBesselfunctions
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper seeks to establish that the mean time until a multi-drug therapy fails—the resistance development time (RDT)—can be computed analytically for a wide class of stochastic therapy models. The authors model each drug's efficacy as a coordinate in an $N_T$-dimensional space, treat therapy switches as stochastic resets, and define the absorbing boundary as the development of resistance. Their formulas reveal a threshold initial efficacy separating regimens where switching extends the RDT from those where switching shortens it, and a phase transition between switching as often as allowed and never switching. A sympathetic reader would care because these predictions are concrete enough to be tested against clinical and evolutionary data, and because the phase boundary could directly guide protocol design.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the reduction of an $N_T$-dimensional isotropic diffusion with stochastic resetting to the radial coordinate $\eta$, exploiting rotational symmetry and a radial drift $f(\eta) = -v/\eta^2$. This reduction converts the backward Fokker-Planck equation into a Bessel equation whose solution, Eq. (3), gives the conditioned mean RDT. The discrete model instead builds a transition matrix $W$ on an $N_T$-dimensional lattice and reads the mean absorption time from the survival matrix $S$ in Eq. (6). The Bessel solution and the survival-matrix formula carry every later conclusion about thresholds, phases, and optimal protocols.

What would settle it

Run the same first-passage calculation with drug-specific diffusion coefficients $D_i$ and drifts $v_i$ while keeping all other assumptions; if the mean RDT deviates from Eq. (3) by more than the Monte Carlo error at any $N_T$ and $\tau$, the rotational-symmetry reduction is false. Alternatively, fit Eq. (3) to clinical RDT data and check whether the inferred $\eta_{\min}$ is stable across regimens, since instability would show the absorbing boundary is not a fixed model parameter.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the RDT in multi-drug therapy is captured by two analytically tractable models: a coupled continuous model in which the radial efficacy $\eta = \sqrt{\sum_i \eta_i^2}$ follows a Bessel-function mean first-passage formula (Eq. 3), and an uncoupled discrete model in which the master equation on an $M^{N_T}$ lattice gives the mean RDT through a survival-matrix formula (Eq. 6). Using these expressions, the authors identify a threshold initial efficacy $\eta_{\mathrm{th}}$ that separates parameter regions where therapy switches lengthen the RDT from regions where they shorten it. They also identify a phase boundary in the $(N_T,\tau_{\min})$ plane between the strategies "switch as fast as allowed" and "never switch." Under limited or costly switching, the optimal switching rate is non-monotonic and depends on the pathogen's mutation rate.

Load-bearing premise

The exact results assume every drug acts identically and independently: isotropic, drug-agnostic diffusion, a rotationally symmetric drift toward failure, and an absorbing boundary fixed at the hand-chosen value $\eta_{\min}=0.4$; break that symmetry or change the threshold, and the formulas, thresholds, and phase diagram all shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For patients whose initial efficacy is above $\eta_{\mathrm{th}}$, increasing the switching rate or the number of drugs extends the mean RDT; below that threshold, switching shortens the RDT, so therapy switching can be actively harmful.
  • With a fixed minimum interval between switches, the optimal policy is either to switch as often as allowed or never, and the choice is decided by a phase boundary in the drug-count versus minimum-interval plane.
  • When only a limited number of switches is available, the mean RDT is non-monotonic in the switching rate, so an optimal finite switching rate exists.
  • Pathogens with a larger mutation rate (diffusion constant $D$) benefit from more simultaneous drugs, while slowly mutating pathogens do better with fewer drugs and fewer switches.
  • Because the never-switch phase also avoids therapy costs, increasing the number of simultaneous drugs can simultaneously maximize the RDT and reduce treatment expense.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial extension: the rotational-symmetry reduction suggests a testable collapse—for a fixed drug count, measured RDTs at different initial efficacies should fall on the same Bessel curve after rescaling by $\lambda = \sqrt{D\tau}$, and deviations would expose drug-specific or interaction effects.
  • Editorial extension: the phase diagram implies a cheap clinical prescription: when a regimen already uses many drugs, adding more switching may be wasted effort, so determining which side of the $(N_T,\tau_{\min})$ boundary a regimen lies on could guide protocol design without new simulations.
  • Editorial extension: the model's $\eta_{\min}=0.4$ is an ad hoc threshold; calibrating the failure boundary from within-host or clinical data would convert the predicted phase boundary into a quantitative, testable prediction with error bars.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a two-scale stochastic model in which the efficacy of each drug in a multi-drug therapy evolves as a diffusion process in an NT-dimensional efficacy space, therapy switches are modeled as stochastic resets, and drug resistance development is a first-passage event occurring when the radial efficacy sqrt(sum_i eta_i^2) falls below eta_min = 0.4. The authors derive an analytical mean resistance development time (RDT) for a coupled continuous model (Eq. 3) using the backward Fokker-Planck equation and Bessel functions, and a discrete-space expression (Eq. 6) for an uncoupled Markov-chain model. They then study how the mean RDT depends on the therapy switching rate and the number of drugs, identify a threshold initial efficacy separating beneficial from detrimental switching, and examine optimal protocols under therapy constraints such as a minimum switch interval, a limited number of switches, and switching costs.

Significance. If the central formulas are correct, the paper offers a tractable analytical framework for a problem that is usually treated numerically, and it has the notable strengths of checking the continuous formulas against Euler-Maruyama simulations and the discrete model against Gillespie simulations, and of producing falsifiable predictions such as the phase diagram separating 'switch as often as possible' from 'do not switch'. The identification of a threshold initial efficacy separating beneficial from detrimental switching is a useful qualitative insight. However, the main analytical result, Eq. (3), is not uniquely defined because of an inconsistent effective-dimension parameter, so the quantitative predictions, the threshold curves, and the phase diagram need to be revisited before the paper's central claims can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section II.A, Eq. (3), and Appendix B3] The parameter d is defined inconsistently between the main text and the appendix. The main text defines d = 2[(v/D)+NT], while Appendix B3 defines d = v/D+NT and obtains a Bessel equation with index beta = d/2 - 1 (Eq. B12) and a solution involving J_beta, Y_beta, J_{beta+1}, Y_{beta+1} (Eqs. B17-B18). Eq. (3) prints Bessel orders d-1 and d, which do not match the appendix orders under either definition: with the main-text d, the appendix orders would be d/2-1 and d/2, and with the appendix d, the orders would again be d/2-1 and d/2. With v = -8e-5 d^-1 and D = 1e-4 d^-1, the two candidate values of d for NT=2 differ substantially (for example, d = 1.2 or d = 2.4), so Fig. 3, Eq. (7), and the Fig. 5 phase diagram are not uniquely determined. The authors should fix a single definition of d and verify that the Bessel-order reduction in Appendix B reproduces exactly the formula printed as Eq. (3).
  2. [Appendix B, Eqs. (B7)-(B10), and Eq. (2)] The sign convention for the drift leads to a further discrepancy in d. From Eq. (B8) with f(eta) = -v/eta^2, the radial drift is [D(NT-1) - v]/eta, so the backward operator (B10) has d = NT - v/D if v is taken as a positive magnitude, or d = NT + |v|/D if v is the signed negative value used in the figures. The text instead states d = v/D + NT in Appendix B and d = 2[(v/D)+NT] in the main text. With v = -8e-5 and D = 1e-4, this sign convention changes d by 1.6 for NT=2, which is the same order as the values of d themselves. Please clarify the sign convention for v and re-derive d directly from Eq. (B8).
  3. [Figs. 3-6 and Section III] Several parameters needed to reproduce the simulations are not specified numerically. In particular, the reflecting boundary eta_max used in Eq. (3) and in boundary condition (B15) is never given a value; the number of lattice states M in the uncoupled discrete model is not listed for Figs. 4 and 6; and the cost parameter c in Eq. (9) is not given for the uncoupled-model curves in Fig. 6c. Without these values, the agreement shown between analytics and simulation cannot be checked, and the reader cannot assess whether M is large enough for the Kramers-Moyal expansion of Appendix C1 to be valid.
  4. [Section II, Eq. defining eta_min] The absorbing threshold eta_min = 0.4 is introduced as a fixed ad hoc value and is used in both the continuous and discrete models. Because eta_min defines the absorbing boundary, the threshold initial efficacy eta_th, the areas S+ and S- in Fig. 3d, and the phase boundary in Fig. 5c are all functions of this choice. A sensitivity analysis over a plausible range of eta_min, or a calibration of eta_min to the host-pathogen model of Appendix A, is needed to establish that the qualitative phase diagram is robust to this assumption.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section IIB] The phrase 'an NT-dimensional lattice of M NT × M NT states' should read 'M^NT states'; the superscripts are missing.
  2. [Appendix D] The word 'hipersphere' should be 'hypersphere'.
  3. [Section IIA] In the sentence introducing Eq. (3), 'Bessel functions of ordern' should read 'Bessel functions of order n'.
  4. [Eq. (7)] The denominator eta_NT_max - eta_NT_min is missing superscripts and should read eta_max^NT - eta_min^NT.
  5. [Section IVA] The statement that successive switches 'diminishes the therapy switching rate 1/tau -> 0' should specify that this is in the limit gamma -> infinity.
  6. [Fig. 6 caption] The caption for panel (d) refers to 'a cost function shown in Eq. (10)', but Eq. (10) is introduced for the coupled model with c = 10^{NT-1}; the uncoupled-model curve in panel (c) uses Eq. (9), and the value of c for that curve is not stated.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the analytical RDT formulas are derived from the stated SDE/master-equation models and are benchmarked only by internal simulation.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. Equation (3) is obtained from the stated radial SDE via the backward Fokker–Planck operator in Appendix B, with Bessel-function solution, and Eq. (6) is the standard survival-matrix expression for mean absorption on the lattice generated by the master equation in Appendix C. Neither formula is fitted to data or to a target quantity; the absorbing condition sqrt(sum eta_i^2) <= eta_min with eta_min = 0.4 is an explicit modeling input, not a predicted value. The simulations in Fig. 3 check the analytics against the same model, which is internal consistency rather than circularity. Same-author references (Refs. 34, 35, 44) appear, but they are contextual (resetting in biology) or provide within-host parameters and earlier therapy-switching results that are extended; they do not supply the validity of the Bessel or lattice derivation. The internal inconsistency in the definition of d between the main text (d = 2[(v/D)+NT]) and Appendix B (d = v/D+NT, with the coefficient in Eq. B10) is a correctness and reproducibility defect that affects Eq. (3), but it is not a circular reduction: Eq. (3) is not equivalent to its inputs by construction, it is an attempted analytic solution containing an ambiguous parameter. The acknowledged limitations (independent drug action, uniform reset distribution, hand-chosen failure threshold) are scope conditions and modeling choices, not circular reasoning. Overall, no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model introduces a new mathematical framework rather than new physical entities. The central results depend on chosen parameters (eta_min, eta_max, M, c) and strong symmetry assumptions, so the quantitative predictions are not independently constrained by data.

free parameters (5)
  • eta_min (failure threshold) = 0.4
    Chosen by hand in Section II to define the absorbing boundary for drug resistance; the main quantitative results (RDT values, phase diagrams) all depend on it.
  • eta_max (reflecting boundary) = not specified in text
    The boundary location for the radial coordinate is used in Eq. (3), Eq. (7), and Appendix B, but the paper never states its value, so the unconditional mean RDT is not uniquely defined.
  • M (number of lattice states per drug) = not specified
    The uncoupled discrete model is defined on an M-state lattice (Section IIB), but the value used for the reported figures is never given.
  • cost parameter c = unspecified for Fig. 6c; c=10^(NT-1) in Eq. (10)
    The cost function in Eq. (9) contains a free parameter c whose value for the discrete-model simulations is not reported; the coupled-model choice is arbitrary.
  • drift v and diffusivity D = v=-8e-5 days^-1, D=1e-4 days^-1
    These parameter values are used for all figures; while Appendix B2 argues they can be rescaled away, the plotted predictions depend on them.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Therapy efficacy evolves as an isotropic diffusion with constant D and radially symmetric drift f(eta)=-v/eta^2.
    Introduced in Section II and Appendix B1 (Eqs. B5-B9); this makes the coupled model analytically tractable but imposes rotational symmetry.
  • ad hoc to paper Drug resistance occurs when the radial efficacy sqrt(sum eta_i^2) falls below eta_min=0.4.
    Section II states the failure condition with eta_min=0.4; the value is motivated by Fig. 1c but not derived from empirical data.
  • domain assumption Therapy switches are Poisson events that reset the efficacy to the initial value (or, in Section IVA, to a uniform random value).
    Section II models switches as stochastic resetting; the reset statistics are assumed, not measured.
  • domain assumption The host-pathogen system is at steady state and therapies act independently, multiplying the infection rate by product(1-eta_i).
    Appendix A uses a within-host HIV model [23,24] to justify the boundary shape, assuming multiplicative independent therapy efficacies.
  • domain assumption The NT-dimensional process can be reduced to a one-dimensional radial process.
    Appendix B1; this is the key step leading to Eq. (2). It requires that angular variables can be integrated out, which fails for anisotropic mutation or drug interactions.
  • standard math Standard stochastic calculus results (backward Fokker-Planck equation, Ito's lemma, Kramers-Moyal expansion).
    Used in Appendices B and C without formal proof; standard background, not an ad hoc invention.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Optimal switching strategies in multi-drug therapies for chronic diseases." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PYR7QEED

@misc{pith2026241116362,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Optimal switching strategies in multi-drug therapies for chronic diseases},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PYR7QEED}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.16362}
}
read the original abstract

Antimicrobial resistance is a threat to public health with millions of deaths linked to drug resistant infections every year. To mitigate resistance, common strategies that are used are combination therapies and therapy switching. However, the stochastic nature of pathogenic mutation makes the optimization of these strategies challenging. Here, we propose a two-scale stochastic model that considers the effective evolution of therapies in a multidimensional efficacy space, where each dimension represents the efficacy of a specific drug in the therapy. The diffusion of therapies within this space is subject to stochastic resets, representing therapy switches. The boundaries of the space, inferred from coarser pathogen-host dynamics, can be either reflecting or absorbing. Reflecting boundaries impede full recovery of the host, while absorbing boundaries represent the development of antimicrobial resistance, leading to therapy failure. We derive analytical expressions for the average absorption times, accounting for both continuous and discrete genomic changes using the frameworks of Langevin and Master equations, respectively. These expressions allow us to evaluate the relevance of times between drug-switches and the number of simultaneous drugs in relation to typical timescales for drug resistance development. We also explore realistic scenarios where therapy constraints are imposed to the number of administered therapies and/or their costs, finding non-trivial optimal drug-switching protocols that maximize the time before antimicrobial resistance develops while reducing therapy costs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.16362 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Schematic representation of the two-scale mathematical model of drug resistance development in terms of the efficacy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Sketch of the coupled and uncoupled models for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (a) Mean RDT with and without therapy resets (green and red respectively) as a function of initial therapy efficacy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Difference between the mean RDT with therapy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Unconditional mean RDT as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Mean RDT with limited switching (a) as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

82 extracted references · 68 canonical work pages

  1. [44]

    Ramoso, J

    A. Ramoso, J. Magalang, D. Sánchez-Taltavull, J. Es- guerra, and E. Roldán, EPL (Europhysics Letters)132, 50003 (2020)

    work page 2020

  2. [1]

    C. J. L. Murray and et al., The Lancet399, 629 (2022)

    2022

  3. [2]

    Liebenberg, B

    D. Liebenberg, B. G. Gordhan, and B. D. Kana, Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology 12, 10.3389/fcimb.2022.943545 (2022)

    work page arXiv 2022

  4. [3]

    A. N. Phillips, J. Stover, V. Cambiano, F. Nakagawa, M. R. Jordan, D. Pillay, M. Doherty, P. Revill, and S. Bertagnolio, The Journal of Infectious Diseases215, 1362 (2017)

    2017

  5. [4]

    Drechsler and W

    H. Drechsler and W. G. Powderly, Clinical Infectious Dis- eases 35, 1219–1230 (2002)

    work page 2002

  6. [5]

    Vasan, J

    N. Vasan, J. Baselga, and D. M. Hyman, Nature575, 299 (2019)

    work page 2019

  7. [6]

    Catalano, D

    A. Catalano, D. Iacopetta, J. Ceramella, D. Scumaci, F. Giuzio, C. Saturnino, S. Aquaro, C. Rosano, and M. S. Sinicropi, Molecules27, 616 (2022)

    work page 2022

  8. [7]

    Maltas, D

    J. Maltas, D. S. Tadele, A. Durmaz, C. D. McFarland, M. Hinczewski, and J. G. Scott, PRX Life 2, 023010 (2024)

    work page 2024

Show all 82 references
  1. [8]

    N. R. Naylor, R. Atun, N. Zhu, K. Kulasabanathan, S. Silva, A. Chatterjee, G. M. Knight, and J. V. Robotham, Antimicrobial Resistance & Infection Control 7, 10.1186/s13756-018-0336-y (2018)

    2018 doi

  2. [9]

    O’Neill,Tackling drug-resistant infections globally: fi- nal report and recommendations (Government of the United Kingdom, 2016)

    J. O’Neill,Tackling drug-resistant infections globally: fi- nal report and recommendations (Government of the United Kingdom, 2016)

    2016

  3. [10]

    B. J. Langford, M. So, M. Simeonova, V. Leung, J. Lo, T. Kan, S. Raybardhan, M. E. Sapin, K. Mponponsuo, A. Farrell,et al., The Lancet Microbe4, e179 (2023)

    2023

  4. [11]

    M. Baym, L. K. Stone, and R. Kishony, Science351, aad3292 (2016)

    2016

  5. [12]

    Tyers and G

    M. Tyers and G. D. Wright, Nature Reviews Microbiol- ogy 17, 141 (2019)

    2019

  6. [13]

    V. I. Band, D. A. Hufnagel, S. Jaggavarapu, E. X. Sher- man, J. E. Wozniak, S. W. Satola, M. M. Farley, J. T. Jacob, E. M. Burd, and D. S. Weiss, Nature microbiology 4, 1627 (2019)

    2019

  7. [14]

    A. D. Haas, O. Keiser, E. Balestre, S. Brown, E. Bis- sagnene, C. Chimbetete, F. Dabis, M.-A. Davies, C. J. Hoffmann, P. Oyaro, R. Parkes-Ratanshi, S. J. Reynolds, I. Sikazwe, K. Wools-Kaloustian, D. M. Zannou, G. Wan- deler, and M. Egger, The Lancet HIV 2, e271–e278 (2015)

    2015

  8. [15]

    Keiser, P

    O. Keiser, P. MacPhail, A. Boulle, R. Wood, M.Schechter, F.Dabis, E.Sprinz,andM.Egger,Tropical Medicine & International Health14, 1220–1225 (2009)

    2009

  9. [16]

    S. J. Reynolds, G. Nakigozi, K. Newell, A. Ndyanabo, R. Galiwongo, I. Boaz, T. C. Quinn, R. Gray, M. Wawer, and D. Serwadda, AIDS23, 697–700 (2009)

    2009

  10. [17]

    K. H. Mayer, H. Drechsler, and W. G. Powderly, Clinical Infectious Diseases35, 1219 (2002)

    2002

  11. [18]

    Davidson, H

    I. Davidson, H. Beardsell, B. Smith, S. Mandalia, M. Bower, B. Gazzard, M. Nelson, and J. Stebbing, An- tiviral Research86, 227 (2010)

    2010

  12. [19]

    M. G. Kirby, P. Allchorne, T. Appanna, P. Davey, R. Gledhill, J. S. A. Green, D. Greene, and D. J. Rosario, International Journal of Clinical Practice 74, 10.1111/ijcp.13429 (2019)

    2019 doi

  13. [20]

    Pinheiro, O

    F. Pinheiro, O. Warsi, D. I. Andersson, and M. Lässig, Nature Ecology & Evolution5, 677–687 (2021)

    2021

  14. [21]

    D. I. Andersson, H. Nicoloff, and K. Hjort, Nature Re- views Microbiology17, 479–496 (2019)

    2019

  15. [22]

    T. Lee, S. Bonhoeffer, and M. Penny, Results in Physics 34, 105181 (2022)

    2022

  16. [23]

    L.RongandA.S.Perelson,PLoSComputationalBiology 5, e1000533 (2009)

    2009

  17. [24]

    A.P.DuncanCallaway,BulletinofMathematicalBiology 64, 29 (2002)

    2002

  18. [25]

    Sharomi and A

    O. Sharomi and A. Gumel, Journal of Biological Dynam- ics 2, 323–345 (2008)

    2008

  19. [26]

    A. M. Niewiadomska, B. Jayabalasingham, J. C. Seid- man, L. Willem, B. Grenfell, D. Spiro, and C. Viboud, BMC Medicine17, 10.1186/s12916-019-1314-9 (2019)

    2019 doi

  20. [27]

    Heesterbeek, R

    H. Heesterbeek, R. M. Anderson, V. Andreasen, S. Bansal, D. De Angelis, C. Dye, K. T. D. Eames, W. J. Edmunds, S. D. W. Frost, S. Funk, T. D. Hollingsworth, T. House, V. Isham, P. Klepac, J. Lessler, J. O. Lloyd- Smith, C. J. E. Metcalf, D. Mollison, L. Pellis, J. R. C. Pullia...

    2015 doi

  21. [28]

    N. T. Hillock, T. L. Merlin, J. Turnidge, and J. Karnon, Applied Health Economics and Health Policy 20, 479–486 (2022)

    2022

  22. [29]

    S. C. Manrubia, Current Opinion in Virology2, 531–537 (2012)

    2012

  23. [30]

    Papkou, L

    A. Papkou, L. Garcia-Pastor, J. A. Escudero, and A. Wagner, Science 382, eadh3860 (2023), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.adh3860

    2023 doi

  24. [31]

    M. R. Evans and S. N. Majumdar, Physical Review Let- ters 106, 160601 (2011)

    2011

  25. [32]

    M. R. Evans, S. N. Majumdar, and G. Schehr, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical53, 193001 (2020)

    2020

  26. [33]

    Rotbart, S

    T. Rotbart, S. Reuveni, and M. Urbakh, Physical Review E 92, 060101 (2015)

    2015

  27. [34]

    Roldán, A

    É. Roldán, A. Lisica, D. Sánchez-Taltavull, and S. W. Grill, Physical Review E93, 062411 (2016)

    2016

  28. [35]

    Lisica, C

    A. Lisica, C. Engel, M. Jahnel, É. Roldán, E. A. Galburt, P. Cramer, and S. W. Grill, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences113, 2946 (2016)

    2016

  29. [36]

    P. C. Bressloff, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 53, 355001 (2020)

    2020

  30. [37]

    J. Wang, K. Zhang, L. Xu, and E. Wang, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences108, 8257 (2011)

    2011

  31. [38]

    Redner,A guide to first-passage processes(Cambridge University Press, 2001)

    S. Redner,A guide to first-passage processes(Cambridge University Press, 2001)

    2001

  32. [39]

    M. R. Evans and S. N. Majumdar, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical44, 435001 (2011)

    2011

  33. [40]

    Pal and V

    A. Pal and V. V. Prasad, Physical Review E 99, 10.1103/physreve.99.032123 (2019)

    2019 doi

  34. [41]

    Kuśmierz and E

    L. Kuśmierz and E. Gudowska-Nowak, Physical Review E 92, 10.1103/physreve.92.052127 (2015)

    2015 doi

  35. [42]

    Pal and S

    A. Pal and S. Reuveni, Physical Review Letters 118, 11 10.1103/physrevlett.118.030603 (2017)

    2017 doi

  36. [43]

    Das and L

    D. Das and L. Giuggioli, Journal of Physics A: Mathe- matical and Theoretical55, 424004 (2022)

    2022

  37. [45]

    D. L. Dy and J. P. Esguerra, Phys. Rev. E88, 012121 (2013)

    2013

  38. [46]

    Gardiner, in Stochastic Methods, Springer series in synergetics (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidel- berg, 2008) pp

    C. Gardiner, in Stochastic Methods, Springer series in synergetics (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidel- berg, 2008) pp. 1–22

    2008

  39. [47]

    Giuggioli, S

    L. Giuggioli, S. Sarvaharman, D. Das, D. Marris, and T. Kay, Multi-target search in bounded and heteroge- neous environments: a lattice random walk perspective (2023)

    2023

  40. [48]

    N. G. V. Kampen,Stochastic Processes in Physics and Chemistry (Elsevier, 2007)

    2007

  41. [49]

    D. T. Gillespie, The Journal of Physical Chemistry81, 2340–2361 (1977)

    1977

  42. [50]

    D.T.Gillespie,TheJournalofChemicalPhysics 72,5363 (1980)

    1980

  43. [51]

    P. E. Harunari, A. Dutta, M. Polettini, and E. Roldán, Physical Review X 12, 10.1103/physrevx.12.041026 (2022)

    2022 doi

  44. [52]

    van der Meer, B

    J. van der Meer, B. Ertel, and U. Seifert, Physical Review X 12, 10.1103/physrevx.12.031025 (2022)

    2022 doi

  45. [53]

    Sekimoto, arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.02216 (2021)

    K. Sekimoto, arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.02216 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Roemhild, T

    R. Roemhild, T. Bollenbach, and D. I. Andersson, Nature Reviews Microbiology20, 478–490 (2022)

    2022

  47. [55]

    J. C. Sunil, R. A. Blythe, M. R. Evans, and S. N. Majum- dar, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 56, 395001 (2023)

    2023

  48. [56]

    De Bruyne and F

    B. De Bruyne and F. Mori, Phys. Rev. Res.5, 013122 (2023)

    2023

  49. [57]

    Baral, R

    S. Baral, R. Raja, P. Sen, and N. M. Dixit, WIREs Systems Biology and Medicine 11, 10.1002/wsbm.1446 (2019)

    2019 doi

  50. [58]

    M. C. F. Prosperi, R. D’Autilia, F. In- cardona, A. De Luca, M. Zazzi, and G. Ulivi, Bioinformatics 25, 1040 (2008), https://academic.oup.com/bioinformatics/article- pdf/25/8/1040/50287497/bioinformatics_25_8_1040.pdf

    2008

  51. [59]

    Nicoloff, K

    H. Nicoloff, K. Hjort, B. R. Levin, and D. I. Andersson, Nature Microbiology4, 504–514 (2019)

    2019

  52. [60]

    Roemhild and H

    R. Roemhild and H. Schulenburg, Evolution, Medicine, and Public Health2019, 37–45 (2019)

    2019

  53. [61]

    C. E. H. Rosenkilde, C. Munck, A. Porse, M. Linkevicius, D. I. Andersson, and M. O. A. Sommer, Nature Commu- nications 10, 10.1038/s41467-019-08529-y (2019)

    2019 doi

  54. [62]

    L.ImamovicandM.O.A.Sommer,ScienceTranslational Medicine 5, 10.1126/scitranslmed.3006609 (2013)

    2013 doi

  55. [63]

    Batra, R

    A. Batra, R. Roemhild, E. Rousseau, S. Franzen- burg, S. Niemann, and H. Schulenburg, eLife 10, 10.7554/elife.68876 (2021)

    2021 doi

  56. [64]

    Oette, E

    M. Oette, E. Schülter, M. Rosen-Zvi, Y. Peres, M. Zazzi, A. Sönnerborg, D. Struck, A. Altmann, R. Kaiser, and the EuResist Network Study Group, Intervi- rology 55, 160 (2012), https://karger.com/int/article- pdf/55/2/160/2942682/000332018.pdf

    2012

  57. [65]

    Sochman and M

    J. Sochman and M. Podzimkova, International Journal of Cardiology99, 145–146 (2005)

    2005

  58. [66]

    A. L. Avanceña and D. W. Hutton, Value in Health23, 1509 (2020)

    2020

  59. [67]

    M. L. Brandeau and G. S. Zaric, Health Care Manage- ment Science12, 27–37 (2008)

    2008

  60. [68]

    Duwal, S

    S. Duwal, S. Winkelmann, C. Schütte, and M. von Kleist, PLOS Computational Biology11, e1004200 (2015)

    2015

  61. [69]

    W. R. Greco, G. Bravo, and J. C. Parsons, Pharmacol. Rev. 47, 331 (1995)

    1995

  62. [70]

    C. I. BLISS, Annals of Applied Biology 26, 585–615 (1939)

    1939

  63. [71]

    D. Chen, G. Liu, H. Du, J. Wee, R. Wang, J. Chen, J. Shen, and G.-W. Wei, ArXiv (2024)

    2024

  64. [72]

    Lamirande, E

    P. Lamirande, E. A. Gaffney, M. Gertz, P. K. Maini, J. R. Crawshaw, and A. Caruso, arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.04086 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  65. [73]

    H. E. Lebovitz and M. A. Banerji, European Journal of Pharmacology 490, 135–146 (2004)

    2004

  66. [74]

    Braido, F

    F. Braido, F. Lavorini, F. Blasi, I. Baiardini, and G. W. Canonica, International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease , 2601 (2015)

    2015

  67. [75]

    M. C. S. Wong, W. W. S. Tam, C. S. K. Cheung, E. L. H. Tong, A. C. H. Sek, G. John, N. T. Cheung, B. P. Y. Yan, C. M. Yu, S. Leeder, and S. Griffiths, PLoS ONE 8, e53625 (2013)

    2013

  68. [76]

    Václavík, P

    J. Václavík, P. Vysočanová, J. Seidlerová, P. Zajíček, O. Petrák, J. Dlask, and J. Krýza, Medicine93, e168 (2014)

    2014

  69. [77]

    V. G. Athyros, K. Tziomalos, A. Karagiannis, and D. P. Mikhailidis, Expert Opinion on Pharmacotherapy 11, 2943–2946 (2010). 12 Appendix A: Steady states of the host-pathogen model In this section, we will describe how the quarter-circle absorbing boundary condition described i...

    2010

  70. [78]

    (2) from the main text

    Model derivation In this section we derive Eq. (2) from the main text. This derivation will be performed without stochastic re- setting, since the SDE with resetting is readily obtained by adding the indicator functions with the process χ, as explained in Eq. (1). Consider a g...

  71. [79]

    3 in the main text)

    Effect of parameters In the main text we analyzed in detail the effect of the number of simultaneous drugs in the therapy (NT) and the average frequency between therapy switches,τ, as a function of the mean RDT (see Fig. 3 in the main text). Nevertheless, the coupled model dep...

  72. [80]

    In particular, the backward Fokker-Planck operator associated to the coupled model in Eq

    Mean resistance development times The equation for conditioned mean RDT,⟨T |η⟩, can be obtained using the backward Fokker-Planck equa- tion formalism [46, 48]. In particular, the backward Fokker-Planck operator associated to the coupled model in Eq. (2) follows the equation D ...

  73. [81]

    Markov chain transition rates In this section, we will derive the transition ratespi and qi as outlined in Section IIB. The transitions from one state to another can be written as a Master equation: dp(ηηη, t) dt = NTX i=1 1 τi δ(ηi − ηi;0) + pip ηi − 1 M , t + qip ηi + 1 M , ...

  74. [82]

    Generating the transition matrix In this section, we will outline how the transition ma- trix for the uncoupled discrete model is generated to be used for the mean RDT formula in Eq. (6). Sums of transition rates pi and qi, and therapy switching rate 1/τi occupy the elements o...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.