pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.25750 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-28 · 🧬 q-bio.PE

Recognition: unknown

From lab to outbreak: experimental mosquito extrinsic incubation period distributions shape dengue epidemic dynamics

L\'ea Loisel , Sandie Arnoux , Ga\"el Beaun\'ee , Pauline Ezanno
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-07 13:49 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🧬 q-bio.PE
keywords dengue transmissionextrinsic incubation periodstochastic modelingepidemic dynamicsmosquito vectorsvector-borne diseasesepidemiological models
0
0 comments X

The pith

Using lab-measured mosquito incubation times in dengue models delays and flattens epidemic peaks relative to the exponential assumption.

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

Dengue transmission models commonly assume an exponential distribution for the mosquito extrinsic incubation period. This paper constructs a stochastic mechanistic model to compare epidemic outcomes under that assumption versus a distribution taken directly from laboratory experiments on mosquitoes. The experimental distribution produces epidemics whose peaks arrive later, reach lower heights, and persist longer, while the probability that an outbreak occurs stays largely the same. These shifts arise principally through the interaction of the varied incubation timing with mosquito mortality and human recovery rates. The result shows that replacing the simplified distribution with one grounded in measured biology changes forecasts of peak timing, height, and duration.

Core claim

Replacing the exponential distribution for the mosquito extrinsic incubation period with an experimentally derived distribution inside a stochastic dengue transmission model delays and flattens epidemic peaks. This yields lower but more prolonged peaks, slightly longer crisis durations, and reduced peak intensity, while outbreak probability remains largely unaffected. The differences are modulated principally by mosquito mortality and human recovery rates.

What carries the argument

Stochastic mechanistic dengue transmission model that substitutes an experimentally derived distribution for the mosquito extrinsic incubation period in place of the standard exponential distribution.

If this is right

  • Epidemic peaks arrive later and reach lower intensity.
  • The period of high incidence lasts longer overall.
  • Crisis durations are slightly extended.
  • Outbreak probability stays nearly unchanged.
  • The magnitude of these changes depends mainly on mosquito mortality and human recovery rates.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Models of Zika or chikungunya transmission by the same mosquitoes may exhibit analogous shifts when realistic incubation distributions are substituted.
  • Vector-control planning could adjust for outbreaks that are less intense but persist longer than exponential models suggest.
  • Direct measurements of incubation periods from field mosquitoes in different regions would allow location-specific refinements to the model.
  • Retrospective comparison of the two model versions against historical dengue outbreak records could quantify improvement in predictive accuracy.

Load-bearing premise

The distribution of extrinsic incubation periods measured in laboratory mosquitoes accurately reflects the variability present in wild mosquito populations that drive dengue transmission.

What would settle it

If observed dengue epidemic curves in regions with independently measured mosquito incubation periods match the timing, height, and duration predicted by the experimental-distribution version of the model more closely than the exponential version, the claim would be supported.

read the original abstract

Dengue virus transmission models commonly assume an exponential distribution for the mosquito extrinsic incubation period (EIP), potentially oversimplifying biological variability. We developed a stochastic mechanistic dengue transmission model comparing epidemic dynamics under commonly assumed exponential (EXP) versus experimentally derived (ED) EIP distributions. Our results show that using an experimentally derived EIP distribution delays and flattens epidemic peaks, resulting in lower but more prolonged peaks, slightly prolongs crisis durations, and reduces peak intensity compared to the exponential assumption, while outbreak probability remains largely unaffected. These differences are modulated by mosquito mortality and human recovery principally. Incorporating experimentally informed EIP distributions enhances the biological realism of models and may improve predictions of dengue epidemic dynamics, informing more effective vector control strategies and public health responses.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript develops a stochastic mechanistic dengue transmission model and compares epidemic dynamics when the mosquito extrinsic incubation period (EIP) follows a standard exponential distribution versus an experimentally derived distribution. It reports that the experimentally derived EIP delays and flattens epidemic peaks (lower but more prolonged), slightly extends crisis durations, reduces peak intensity, and leaves outbreak probability largely unchanged, with effects modulated principally by mosquito mortality and human recovery rates. The work concludes that incorporating experimentally informed EIP distributions improves model realism and may enhance predictions for vector control and public health responses.

Significance. If the reported qualitative shifts hold under the model's assumptions, the result underscores the sensitivity of outbreak metrics to the choice of EIP distribution and provides a concrete demonstration that replacing the exponential assumption with lab-derived data can alter timing, height, and duration of simulated dengue epidemics. This strengthens the case for using empirically grounded distributions in mechanistic models and could inform more accurate forecasting and intervention planning, particularly in settings where mosquito mortality and human recovery rates vary.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3] §3 (Model Description): the stochastic implementation of the ED EIP distribution is described at a high level but the exact probability density function, its parameterization from experimental data, and the numerical scheme used to sample it within the individual-based simulation are not provided; without these, it is impossible to verify that the reported differences arise solely from the distributional shape rather than from implementation details or discretization artifacts.
  2. [§4.2] §4.2 (Sensitivity Analyses): while the abstract states that differences are modulated by mosquito mortality and human recovery rates, the manuscript does not report a systematic sensitivity analysis (e.g., partial rank correlation coefficients or tornado plots) quantifying how much of the peak-delay and intensity-reduction effect is attributable to each parameter versus the EIP distribution itself; this weakens the claim that the distributional choice is the primary driver.
minor comments (3)
  1. The abstract and introduction use the term 'crisis durations' without a precise definition (e.g., time above a given incidence threshold); a short clarifying sentence would improve readability.
  2. Figure captions for the epidemic trajectory panels should explicitly state the number of stochastic realizations averaged and the shading for variability (e.g., interquartile range).
  3. A brief comparison table listing the mean, variance, and shape parameters of the EXP versus ED distributions would help readers immediately see the source of the reported differences.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive review and recommendation for minor revision. We have addressed both major comments by agreeing to expand the model description and add a formal sensitivity analysis. Point-by-point responses follow.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§3] §3 (Model Description): the stochastic implementation of the ED EIP distribution is described at a high level but the exact probability density function, its parameterization from experimental data, and the numerical scheme used to sample it within the individual-based simulation are not provided; without these, it is impossible to verify that the reported differences arise solely from the distributional shape rather than from implementation details or discretization artifacts.

    Authors: We agree that greater detail is required for full reproducibility and verification. In the revised manuscript we will expand §3 to specify the exact probability density function for the experimentally derived EIP, its parameterization from the underlying experimental dataset, and the precise numerical sampling algorithm employed within the individual-based model. These additions will confirm that the reported differences originate from the distributional form itself. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§4.2] §4.2 (Sensitivity Analyses): while the abstract states that differences are modulated by mosquito mortality and human recovery rates, the manuscript does not report a systematic sensitivity analysis (e.g., partial rank correlation coefficients or tornado plots) quantifying how much of the peak-delay and intensity-reduction effect is attributable to each parameter versus the EIP distribution itself; this weakens the claim that the distributional choice is the primary driver.

    Authors: The referee correctly notes that our current presentation relies on targeted parameter variations rather than a formal global sensitivity analysis. While we demonstrated modulation by mosquito mortality and human recovery rates, we did not quantify relative contributions via metrics such as partial rank correlation coefficients. In the revision we will add a systematic sensitivity analysis using PRCC to partition the effects of the EIP distributional choice from those of the key rate parameters, thereby strengthening the claim that the distributional shape is a primary driver. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity

full rationale

The paper's derivation consists of a stochastic mechanistic simulation that directly substitutes an experimentally derived EIP distribution (from external lab data) for the exponential assumption and computes epidemic metrics as outputs. No equations reduce those outputs to the model's own fitted parameters or to self-referential constructs; the reported shifts in peak timing, height, duration, and outbreak probability follow from the differing input distributions and the varied parameters (mosquito mortality, human recovery). The setup contains no self-definitional steps, no fitted-input predictions, and no load-bearing self-citations that collapse the central claim. The work is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the representativeness of the lab-derived EIP distribution and on the assumption that the stochastic model structure correctly transmits the effect of that distribution through mosquito mortality and human recovery parameters; no explicit free parameters are named in the abstract.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption The extrinsic incubation period distribution governs the timing of mosquito infectiousness in the transmission cycle.
    Invoked when the model switches between EXP and ED inputs.
  • domain assumption Mosquito mortality and human recovery rates are the principal modulators of the observed differences in epidemic shape.
    Stated directly in the abstract as the factors that modulate the EIP effect.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5437 in / 1381 out tokens · 82002 ms · 2026-05-07T13:49:38.591894+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Global trends in emerging infectious diseases

    Jones KE, Patel NG, Levy MA, Storeygard A, Balk D, Gittleman JL, et al. Global trends in emerging infectious diseases. Nature. 2008 Feb;451(7181):7181. doi:10.1038/nature06536

    work page doi:10.1038/nature06536 2008

  2. [2]

    Mapping global variation in dengue transmission intensity

    Cattarino L, Rodriguez-Barraquer I, Imai N, Cummings DAT, Ferguson NM. Mapping global variation in dengue transmission intensity. Sci Transl Med. 2020;12(528). doi:10.1126/scitranslmed.aax4144

    work page doi:10.1126/scitranslmed.aax4144 2020

  3. [3]

    The current and future global distribution and population at risk of dengue

    Messina JP, Brady OJ, Golding N, Kraemer MUG, Wint GRW, Ray SE, et al. The current and future global distribution and population at risk of dengue. Nat Microbiol. 2019;4(9):1508 –15. doi:10.1038/s41564-019- 0476-8 PubMed PMID: 31182801; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6784886

    work page doi:10.1038/s41564-019- 2019

  4. [4]

    Global, regional, and national dengue burden from 1990 to 2017: A systematic analysis based on the global burden of disease study 2017

    Zeng Z, Zhan J, Chen L, Chen H, Cheng S. Global, regional, and national dengue burden from 1990 to 2017: A systematic analysis based on the global burden of disease study 2017. EClinicalMedicine. 2021 Feb;32:100712. doi:10.1016/j.eclinm.2020.100712 PubMed PMID: 33681736; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC7910667

    work page doi:10.1016/j.eclinm.2020.100712 1990

  5. [5]

    Cost of illness and program of dengue: A systematic review

    Oliveira LN da S, Itria A, Lima EC. Cost of illness and program of dengue: A systematic review. PLOS ONE. 2019 Feb 20;14(2):e0211401. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0211401 19

    work page doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0211401 2019

  6. [6]

    Dynamic Epidemiological Models for Dengue Transmission: A Systematic Review of Structural Approaches

    Andraud M, Hens N, Marais C, Beutels P. Dynamic Epidemiological Models for Dengue Transmission: A Systematic Review of Structural Approaches. PLOS ONE. 2012 Nov 6;7(11):e49085. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0049085

    work page doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0049085 2012

  7. [7]

    Mathematical models for dengue fever epidemiology: A 10-year systematic review

    Aguiar M, Anam V, Blyuss KB, Estadilla CDS, Guerrero BV, Knopoff D, et al. Mathematical models for dengue fever epidemiology: A 10-year systematic review. Phys Life Rev. 2022 Mar;40:65–92. doi:10.1016/j.plrev.2022.02.001 PubMed PMID: 35219611; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC8845267

    work page doi:10.1016/j.plrev.2022.02.001 2022

  8. [8]

    How mechanistic modelling supports decision making for the control of enzootic infectious diseases

    Ezanno P, Andraud M, Beaunée G, Hoch T, Krebs S, Rault A, et al. How mechanistic modelling supports decision making for the control of enzootic infectious diseases. Epidemics. 2020 Sep 1;32:100398. doi:10.1016/j.epidem.2020.100398

    work page doi:10.1016/j.epidem.2020.100398 2020

  9. [9]

    Models of the impact of dengue vaccines: a review of current research and potential approaches

    Johansson MA, Hombach J, Cummings DAT. Models of the impact of dengue vaccines: a review of current research and potential approaches. Vaccine. 2011 Aug 11;29(35):5860–8. doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2011.06.042 PubMed PMID: 21699949; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4327892

    work page doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2011.06.042 2011

  10. [10]

    Assessing the effects of vector control on dengue transmission

    Yang HM, Ferreira CP. Assessing the effects of vector control on dengue transmission. Appl Math Comput. 2008 Apr 15;198(1):401–13. doi:10.1016/j.amc.2007.08.046

    work page doi:10.1016/j.amc.2007.08.046 2008

  11. [11]

    A systematic review of dengue outbreak prediction models: Current scenario and future directions

    Leung XY, Islam RM, Adhami M, Ilic D, McDonald L, Palawaththa S, et al. A systematic review of dengue outbreak prediction models: Current scenario and future directions. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2023 Feb 13;17(2):e0010631. doi:10.1371/journal.pntd.0010631

    work page doi:10.1371/journal.pntd.0010631 2023

  12. [12]

    The importance of model assumptions in estimating the dynamics of the COVID -19 epidemic

    Forbes V. The importance of model assumptions in estimating the dynamics of the COVID -19 epidemic. Peer Community Math Comput Biol. 2021 Jul 4;1:100004. doi:10.24072/pci.mcb.100004

    work page doi:10.24072/pci.mcb.100004 2021

  13. [13]

    The importance of the incubation time distribution in compartmental epidemiological models

    Rozan EA, Kuperman MN, Bouzat S. The importance of the incubation time distribution in compartmental epidemiological models. Phys Stat Mech Its Appl. 2024 Sep 15;650:129998. doi:10.1016/j.physa.2024.129998

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physa.2024.129998 2024

  14. [14]

    The Incubation Periods of Dengue Viruses

    Chan M, Johansson MA. The Incubation Periods of Dengue Viruses. PLOS ONE. 2012 Nov 30;7(11):e50972. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0050972

    work page doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0050972 2012

  15. [15]

    Intra-vector infection dynamics challenge how to model the extrinsic incubation period for major arboviruses: dengue, Zika, and chikungunya

    Loisel L, Raquin V, Ratinier M, Ezanno P, Beaunée G. Intra-vector infection dynamics challenge how to model the extrinsic incubation period for major arboviruses: dengue, Zika, and chikungunya. PLOS Comput Biol. 2025 Aug 25;21(8):e1013393. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1013393

    work page doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1013393 2025

  16. [16]

    The Interaction between Vector Life History and Short Vector Life in Vector-Borne Disease Transmission and Control

    Brand SPC, Rock KS, Keeling MJ. The Interaction between Vector Life History and Short Vector Life in Vector-Borne Disease Transmission and Control. PLoS Comput Biol. 2016 Apr 29;12(4):e1004837. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004837 PubMed PMID: 27128163; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4851302

    work page doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004837 2016

  17. [17]

    Estimation of the reproduction number of dengue fever from spatial epidemic data

    Chowell G, Diaz-Dueñas P, Miller JC, Alcazar-Velazco A, Hyman JM, Fenimore PW, et al. Estimation of the reproduction number of dengue fever from spatial epidemic data. Math Biosci. 2007 Aug 1;208(2):571 –

    2007

  18. [18]

    doi:10.1016/j.mbs.2006.11.011

    work page doi:10.1016/j.mbs.2006.11.011 2006

  19. [19]

    The Basic Reproduction Number ℛ0 and Effectiveness of Reactive Interventions during Dengue Epidemics: The 2002 Dengue Outbreak in Easter Island, Chile

    Chowell G, Fuentes R, Olea A, Aguilera X, Nesse H, Hyman JM. The Basic Reproduction Number ℛ0 and Effectiveness of Reactive Interventions during Dengue Epidemics: The 2002 Dengue Outbreak in Easter Island, Chile. Math Biosci Eng MBE. 2013;10(0):1455–74. PubMed PMID: 24245625; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4397933

    2002

  20. [20]

    Understanding epidemics from mathematical models: Details of the 2010 dengue epidemic in Bello (Antioquia, Colombia)

    Lizarralde-Bejarano DP, Arboleda-Sánchez S, Puerta-Yepes ME. Understanding epidemics from mathematical models: Details of the 2010 dengue epidemic in Bello (Antioquia, Colombia). Appl Math Model. 2017 Mar 1;43:566–78. doi:10.1016/j.apm.2016.11.022

    work page doi:10.1016/j.apm.2016.11.022 2010

  21. [21]

    Epidemiological significance of dengue virus genetic variation in mosquito infection dynamics

    Fontaine A, Lequime S, Moltini-Conclois I, Jiolle D, Leparc-Goffart I, Jr RCR, et al. Epidemiological significance of dengue virus genetic variation in mosquito infection dynamics. PLOS Pathog. 2018 Jul 13;14(7):e1007187. doi:10.1371/journal.ppat.1007187 20

    work page doi:10.1371/journal.ppat.1007187 2018

  22. [22]

    An Explosive Epidemic of DENV-3 in Cairns, Australia

    Ritchie SA, Pyke AT, Hall-Mendelin S, Day A, Mores CN, Christofferson RC, et al. An Explosive Epidemic of DENV-3 in Cairns, Australia. PLoS ONE. 2013 Jul 16;8(7):e68137. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0068137 PubMed PMID: 23874522; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3712959

    work page doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0068137 2013

  23. [23]

    Mosquito antiviral defense mechanisms: a delicate balance between innate immunity and persistent viral infection

    Lee WS, Webster JA, Madzokere ET, Stephenson EB, Herrero LJ. Mosquito antiviral defense mechanisms: a delicate balance between innate immunity and persistent viral infection. Parasit Vectors. 2019 Apr 11;12:165. doi:10.1186/s13071-019-3433-8 PubMed PMID: 30975197; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6460799

    work page doi:10.1186/s13071-019-3433-8 2019

  24. [24]

    Immune Response to Dengue Virus and Prospects for a Vaccine*

    Murphy BR, Whitehead SS. Immune Response to Dengue Virus and Prospects for a Vaccine*. Annu Rev Immunol. 2011 Apr 23;29(Volume 29, 2011):587–619. doi:10.1146/annurev-immunol-031210-101315

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-immunol-031210-101315 2011

  25. [25]

    Influence of spatial heterogeneity on an emerging infectious disease: the case of dengue epidemics

    Favier C, Schmit D, Müller-Graf CDM, Cazelles B, Degallier N, Mondet B, et al. Influence of spatial heterogeneity on an emerging infectious disease: the case of dengue epidemics. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci. 2005 Jun 7;272(1568):1171–7. doi:10.1098/rspb.2004.3020 PubMed PMID: 16024379; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC1559809

    work page doi:10.1098/rspb.2004.3020 2005

  26. [26]

    Assessing the effects of temperature on the population of Aedes aegypti, the vector of dengue

    Yang HM, Macoris MLG, Galvani KC, Andrighetti MTM, Wanderley DMV. Assessing the effects of temperature on the population of Aedes aegypti, the vector of dengue. Epidemiol Infect. 2009 Aug;137(8):1188–202. doi:10.1017/S0950268809002040

    work page doi:10.1017/s0950268809002040 2009

  27. [27]

    Detecting the impact of temperature on transmission of Zika, dengue, and chikungunya using mechanistic models

    Mordecai EA, Cohen JM, Evans MV, Gudapati P, Johnson LR, Lippi CA, et al. Detecting the impact of temperature on transmission of Zika, dengue, and chikungunya using mechanistic models. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2017 Apr 27;11(4):e0005568. doi:10.1371/journal.pntd.0005568

    work page doi:10.1371/journal.pntd.0005568 2017

  28. [28]

    Simulation models of dengue transmission in Funchal, Madeira Island: Influence of seasonality

    Salami D, Capinha C, Sousa CA, Martins MDRO, Lord C. Simulation models of dengue transmission in Funchal, Madeira Island: Influence of seasonality. Barker CM, editor. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2020 Oct 5;14(10):e0008679. doi:10.1371/journal.pntd.0008679

    work page doi:10.1371/journal.pntd.0008679 2020

  29. [29]

    The biting rate of Aedes aegypti and its variability: A systematic review (1970–2022)

    Zahid MH, Van Wyk H, Morrison AC, Coloma J, Lee GO, Cevallos V, et al. The biting rate of Aedes aegypti and its variability: A systematic review (1970–2022). PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2023 Aug 8;17(8):e0010831. doi:10.1371/journal.pntd.0010831 PubMed PMID: 37552669; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC10456196

    work page doi:10.1371/journal.pntd.0010831 1970

  30. [30]

    [cited 2025 Oct 1]

    Dengue et dengue sévère [Internet]. [cited 2025 Oct 1]. Available from: https://www.who.int/fr/news- room/fact-sheets/detail/dengue-and-severe-dengue

    2025

  31. [31]

    Yellow Book [Internet]

    CDC. Yellow Book [Internet]. 2025 [cited 2025 Oct 20]. Dengue. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/yellow-book/hcp/travel-associated-infections-diseases/dengue.html

    2025

  32. [32]

    Paz-Bailey G, Adams LE, Deen J, Anderson KB, Katzelnick LC. Dengue. The Lancet. 2024 Feb 17;403(10427):667–82. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(23)02576-X

    work page doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(23)02576-x 2024

  33. [33]

    Biometrics Bulletin , author =

    Wilcoxon F. Individual Comparisons by Ranking Methods. Biom Bull. 1945 Dec;1(6):80. doi:10.2307/3001968

    work page doi:10.2307/3001968 1945

  34. [34]

    Estimates of Location Based on Rank Tests

    Jr JLH, Lehmann EL. Estimates of Location Based on Rank Tests. Ann Math Stat. 1963 Jun;34(2):598 –611. doi:10.1214/aoms/1177704172

    work page doi:10.1214/aoms/1177704172 1963

  35. [35]

    Annual Review of Statistics and Its Application , author =

    Panaretos VM, Zemel Y. Statistical Aspects of Wasserstein Distances. Annu Rev Stat Its Appl. 2019 Mar 7;6(1):405–31. doi:10.1146/annurev-statistics-030718-104938

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-statistics-030718-104938 2019

  36. [36]

    car: Companion to Applied Regression [Internet]

    Fox J, Weisberg S, Price B. car: Companion to Applied Regression [Internet]. 2001 [cited 2025 Nov 4]. p. 3.1-3. Available from: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=car doi:10.32614/CRAN.package.car

    work page doi:10.32614/cran.package.car 2001

  37. [37]

    An agent-based nested model integrating within-host and between-host mechanisms to predict an epidemic

    Tatsukawa Y, Arefin MR, Kuga K, Tanimoto J. An agent-based nested model integrating within-host and between-host mechanisms to predict an epidemic. PLOS ONE. 2023 Dec 15;18(12):e0295954. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0295954 21

    work page doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0295954 2023

  38. [38]

    Quantifying the potential relative roles of Aedes aegypti and Ae

    Kristan M, Ahmed F, Susong K, Allel K, Yakob L, Cameron M, et al. Quantifying the potential relative roles of Aedes aegypti and Ae. albopictus in dengue transmission: A systematic literature review and meta - analysis of dengue virus prevalence in both vectors. Int J Infect Dis. 2025 Oct;159:108004. doi:10.1016/j.ijid.2025.108004

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ijid.2025.108004 2025

  39. [39]

    Large epidemic

    Johnson RM, Stopard IJ, Byrne HM, Armstrong PM, Brackney DE, Lambert B. Investigating the dose - dependency of the midgut escape barrier using a mechanistic model of within -mosquito dengue virus population dynamics. Lambrechts L, editor. PLOS Pathog. 2024 Apr 1;20(4):e1011975. doi:10.1371/journal.ppat.1011975 22 SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL Figure S1: Assessme...

    work page doi:10.1371/journal.ppat.1011975 2024