Loading [MathJax]/jax/output/SVG/fonts/TeX/fontdata.js
Research article

Farmers’ attitude towards the use of genetically modified crop technology in Southern Ghana: The mediating role of risk perception

  • Food and agricultural policy research is often challenged with the issue of commercializing the application of transgenic technology in food production. There is a need for an enhanced understanding of how risk and benefit information influence the general attitudes of farmers towards genetically modified (GM) technology. This paper contributes to existing literature by studying the various adoption factors that influence Ghanaian farmers’ attitudes toward GM crop technology by using risk perception as a mediating tool. An empirical choice of methodology which is structural equation analysis was incorporated in this study. We report that, after conducting a survey among 325 respondents, Ghanaian farmers’ negative attitudes toward GM technology is as a result of the influence of risk perception on the attributes of the innovative technology (relative advantage, trialability, mass media, and interpersonal relations). We employ a conceptual framework that incorporates Innovation Diffusion Theory (IDT) and Risk analysis to assess the relationships between the attributes and attitudes towards GM technology. It was revealed in the structural equation modeling (SEM) analysis that, risk perception exerts a significant influence on the effects of the attributes of GM technology adoption thus reflecting a negative attitude towards the adoption of the related technology. We further discussed the implications for emphasizing the need for a positive attitude toward the acceptance and adoption of GM technology in Ghana.

    Citation: Priscilla Charmaine Kwade, Benjamin Kweku Lugu, Sadia Lukman, Carl Edem Quist, Jianxun Chu. Farmers’ attitude towards the use of genetically modified crop technology in Southern Ghana: The mediating role of risk perception[J]. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2019, 4(4): 833-853. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2019.4.833

    Related Papers:

    [1] Mehmet Yavuz, Waled Yavız Ahmed Haydar . A new mathematical modelling and parameter estimation of COVID-19: a case study in Iraq. AIMS Bioengineering, 2022, 9(4): 420-446. doi: 10.3934/bioeng.2022030
    [2] Sarbaz H. A. Khoshnaw, Azhi Sabir Mohammed . Computational simulations of the effects of social distancing interventions on the COVID-19 pandemic. AIMS Bioengineering, 2022, 9(3): 239-251. doi: 10.3934/bioeng.2022016
    [3] Fumiaki Uchiumi, Yoko Ogino, Akira Sato, Sei-ichi Tanuma . Insights into the development of effective materials to suppress replication of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). AIMS Bioengineering, 2020, 7(3): 124-129. doi: 10.3934/bioeng.2020012
    [4] Sarbaz H. A. Khoshnaw, Kawther Y. Abdulrahman, Arkan N. Mustafa . Identifying key critical model parameters in spreading of COVID-19 pandemic. AIMS Bioengineering, 2022, 9(2): 163-177. doi: 10.3934/bioeng.2022012
    [5] Kuna Dhananjay Rao, Mudunuru Satya Dev Kumar, Paidi Pavani, Darapureddy Akshitha, Kagitha Nagamaleswara Rao, Hafiz Tayyab Rauf, Mohamed Sharaf . Cardiovascular disease prediction using hyperparameters-tuned LSTM considering COVID-19 with experimental validation. AIMS Bioengineering, 2023, 10(3): 265-282. doi: 10.3934/bioeng.2023017
    [6] Júlia Novaes Matias, Gyovanna Sorrentino dos Santos Campanari, Gabriela Achete de Souza, Vinícius Marinho Lima, Ricardo José Tofano, Claudia Rucco Penteado Detregiachi, Sandra M. Barbalho . Metabolic syndrome and COVID-19. AIMS Bioengineering, 2020, 7(4): 242-253. doi: 10.3934/bioeng.2020021
    [7] Fırat Evirgen, Fatma Özköse, Mehmet Yavuz, Necati Özdemir . Real data-based optimal control strategies for assessing the impact of the Omicron variant on heart attacks. AIMS Bioengineering, 2023, 10(3): 218-239. doi: 10.3934/bioeng.2023015
    [8] Prasantha Bharathi Dhandapani, Dumitru Baleanu, Jayakumar Thippan, Vinoth Sivakumar . On stiff, fuzzy IRD-14 day average transmission model of COVID-19 pandemic disease. AIMS Bioengineering, 2020, 7(4): 208-223. doi: 10.3934/bioeng.2020018
    [9] Bashdar A. Salam, Sarbaz H. A. Khoshnaw, Abubakr M. Adarbar, Hedayat M. Sharifi, Azhi S. Mohammed . Model predictions and data fitting can effectively work in spreading COVID-19 pandemic. AIMS Bioengineering, 2022, 9(2): 197-212. doi: 10.3934/bioeng.2022014
    [10] Cong Toai Truong, Kim Hieu Huynh, Van Tu Duong, Huy Hung Nguyen, Le An Pham, Tan Tien Nguyen . Model-free volume and pressure cycled control of automatic bag valve mask ventilator. AIMS Bioengineering, 2021, 8(3): 192-207. doi: 10.3934/bioeng.2021017
  • Food and agricultural policy research is often challenged with the issue of commercializing the application of transgenic technology in food production. There is a need for an enhanced understanding of how risk and benefit information influence the general attitudes of farmers towards genetically modified (GM) technology. This paper contributes to existing literature by studying the various adoption factors that influence Ghanaian farmers’ attitudes toward GM crop technology by using risk perception as a mediating tool. An empirical choice of methodology which is structural equation analysis was incorporated in this study. We report that, after conducting a survey among 325 respondents, Ghanaian farmers’ negative attitudes toward GM technology is as a result of the influence of risk perception on the attributes of the innovative technology (relative advantage, trialability, mass media, and interpersonal relations). We employ a conceptual framework that incorporates Innovation Diffusion Theory (IDT) and Risk analysis to assess the relationships between the attributes and attitudes towards GM technology. It was revealed in the structural equation modeling (SEM) analysis that, risk perception exerts a significant influence on the effects of the attributes of GM technology adoption thus reflecting a negative attitude towards the adoption of the related technology. We further discussed the implications for emphasizing the need for a positive attitude toward the acceptance and adoption of GM technology in Ghana.


    There is a novel worldwide outbreak of a new type of coronavirus (2019-nCoV), COVID-19 is the new coronavirus that has spread among human beings specifically it was first detected in Wuhan in China and has now reached to 196 countries. COVID-19 is a respiratory virus that is transmitted through contact with an infected person through droplets when a person coughs or sneezes, or through saliva droplets [1]. More precisely, for both countries, Turkey and Iraq, the basic reproduction numbers R0 have been reported by [2], [3], the estimation by 9 April 2020 revealed that R0 for Turkey is 7.4 and for Iraq is 3.4 [2], obviously, the larger value of R0, means the spreading is faster, and the harder it is to control the epidemic. Moreover, according to the daily data of the pandemic on the number confirmed new cases reported from WHO situation reports, the new cases in Turkey on 11 April are 5138 [4], and in Iraq on 29 May are 416 [5], which can be counted as the peak value from the beginning of the disease. Also, WHO declared that it is a pandemic disease. Governments in the world are under pressure to stop the infection. The cause of the current coronavirus infection has been determined as bats. In addition to that, some virologists who dealt with the gene sequence of novel coronavirus, after comparing coronaviruses in other creatures, their results revealed that bats and minks might be the couple probable hosts that were found to be most similar to those of the new coronavirus. It has been confirmed that COVID-19 is more contagious than SARS and MERS. The awareness of humanity is the only way to prevent the COVID-19 massive outbreak from turning into an economic, social, and security crisis that threatens world peace and prosperity. The WHO warned people that they must wash their hands frequently, and stay at home, for necessary stuff when they are out they have to wear mask and wear gloves [6].

    Although a significant number of individuals are estimated to be infected with COVID-19 globally, sadly, there is no cure yet for it. Along with, the international organizations like the WHO play a vital role in reducing panic and removing stigma. Also, China as the main front line in the fight against the COVID-19 contagion, has made the greatest effort, achieved the most firsthand experience, and attained the most outstanding results. It stands ready to contribute its experience with the international community and enhance collaboration with other countries and international organizations to win the battle against the COVID-19. Furthermore, biomedical research cooperation is essential in any prevention and control efforts, especially in countries with low levels of public health emergency preparedness. For instance, Scientists at Harvard Medical School have joined forces with an expert team to work on diagnostic reagents. Beside this, international aid helps alleviate shortages of medical supplies [7].

    There are some recently published works about the COVID-19 pandemic. One of the recent studies is about the prediction and control of covid-19 some models have been used based on dynamics to lessen the disease transmission three States in India have been forecast to control measure to reduce the contact of exposed and susceptible humans[8]. Also, another step forward work in this area is in the absence of vaccines or effective treatments in the world, in some countries like South Korea, Italy and Brazil some strategies have been adopted such as social isolation, lock-down of cities and border control to reduce the concerns of people [9]. Apart from this, COVID-19 outbreak in Canada using deep learning (DL) models key futures have been evaluated to predict the trends and possible stopping time of the novel COVID-19 outbreak around the world. The long short-term memory (LSTM) networks have been presented [10].While in another study it is dealt with how the transmission dynamics of infection took place in society, the mathematical modeling of fourteen nonlinear FDEs was presented [11].Furthermore, in another study a short-term predicting COVID-19 has been predicted in Brazil. As long as developing short-term forecasting models allow forecasting the number of future cases [12]. Back to predicting as it has been proposed that scientific community should come together provide novel and better methods, strategies, forecasting techniques and models, to understand and lessen the effects of this and future pandemics [13]. At this time in a different study an optimal regression tree algorithm has been applied to find the main causal variables that significantly affect the case fatality rates for different countries such as Canada, France, India, South Korea and the UK [14].

    The COVID-19 mathematical modelling is confidentially working to comprehend and predict how infections spread. The use of mathematical models are to create a simplified depiction of infection spread in a population and to understand how an infection might increase in the future. These predictions could assist us to use public health resources such as vaccination programs, treatments, preventions and interventions. The development of computational models used to simulate dynamical equations for coronavirus disease. Clinicians and administrators are accepting the conclusions drawn from modeling, often without realizing the data are simulated. A new application for mathematical modeling is the determination of sample size requirement. Estimates of the population parameters can direct a simulation that increases one patient at a time until a statistically significant difference is detected between the experimental groups. A series of such simulations can give investigators a range and midpoint of a sample size that should satisfy the test of their hypothesis [15].

    Covid-19 is novel and appeared at the end of 2019 for this reason there are not many imperial studies regarding coronavirus. Although, there are some studies that have been proposed in this field but are not sufficient. For example; a study has been conducted by Biao Tang , et al. in [16]. They suggested a deterministic compartmental model based on the clinical development of the disease, epidemiological status of the individuals, and intervention measures. According to their study, the estimations based on likelihood and model analysis show that the control reproduction number may be as high as 6.47. At the same time, Sha He1, et al. developed a model on the impact of the timing of working that is categorized on the disease transmission given different strength of protection and control measures [1]. On the other hand, Altaf Khan and Atangana proposed a model with the assumptions that the seafood market has enough source of infection that can be effective to infect people [17]. The reader can find more improvements for the COVID-19 models in [18][21].

    Although, there are some mathematical modelling that have been proposed for new coronavirus disease prediction, but some of them can be further improved. Applying numerical methods to calculate some approximate solutions for this virus, could improve the predictions and estimations. A problem that has not been studied yet is Runge-Kutta methods for COVID-19. In a complicated coronavirus model, it is essential to find some numerical results more accurately and widely.

    After announcing a curfew by the government for long time and banning travel between all Iraqi provinces, Iraqi citizens who have been abroad in the past fourteen days will be quarantined for fourteen days. The first case was in one of the provinces of Iraq in February; however, at the end of May it reached to 4848 Coronavirus cases since the epidemic began, according to the WHO. Initiation, Iraq reported 169 coronavirus deaths. Comparing infected coronavirus cases in Turkey in March and May, a few cases where confirmed but the number is increasing sharply in May to 158762 cases, and the number of death people is 4397.

    The contribution of this work is applying the idea of Euler's method and Runge-Kutta methods to analyze the COVID-19 model equations and identifying the critical model elements. The main contributions in this work can be summarized as follows:

    • The recently published papers about the COVID-19 have reviewed and discussed.
    • The transmission rates are modeled as a system non-linear differential equations.
    • The Runga Kutta and Euler method are suggested to find some numerical solutions for such equations.
    • Another goal here is investigating forecasting epidemic size for Turkey and Iraq using the logistic model. The data for the confirmed cases in Turkey and Iraq have used in our computational simulations, some predications are discussed.
    • Based on the computational simulations, the number of infected people has increased gradually until April 2020, then it will be decreased slightly after May 2020.

    Many scientific and technological problems are modeled mathematically by systems of ordinary differential equations, for example, chemical reactions, ecological interactions, biological process. Most realistic systems of ordinary differential equations do not have exact analytic solutions. Therefore, numerical techniques and computational tools help in providing model solutions [22].

    There are many types of practical numerical methods that produce numerical approximations to solution of initial value problems (IVP) in ordinary differential equations. Historically, the ancestor of all numerical methods in use today was originated by Leonhard Euler in 1768, improved Euler's method and Runge-Kutta methods described by Carl Runge and Martin Kutta in 1895 and 1905 respectively. Accordingly, Euler's method, Runge–Kutta method of order two (RK2) and Runge–Kutta method of order four (RK4) can be easily used for solving non–linear system of infectious disease models with initial populations. More details and details regarding such numerical methods with application examples can be found in [23][26]. In this paper, we review some basic concepts for such numerical techniques.

    Euler's method is basic explicit method for solving systems of ordinary differential equations with initial conditions. More details and applications of this method can be seen in [27]. The basic Euler's method formula is given below:

    ui+1=ui+hf(ti,ui),
    to apply this formula for the following system of first order differential equations and t[a,b],
    du1dt=f1(t,u1,u2,,um),du2dt=f2(t,u1,u2,,um),du3dt=f3(t,u1,u2,,um),dumdt=fm(t,u1,u2,,um),
    with the initial conditions
    ui(a)=αi,  for i=1,2,,m.

    Updating the function u1 by f1, u2 by f2, … , um by fm and using the step size h=ban, formula (2.1) takes the form

    uj(i+1)=uj(i)+hfj(t(i),u1(i),u2(i),,um(i)),
    where i = 0,1,…,n − 1 and and j = 1,2,…,m.

    Euler's method is easy to use and direct because in this method no integration appeared in calculation. It is also less time-consuming [27]. Moreover, Euler's method can be successfully applied to solve a problem where an analytic solution is impossible, for its recurring ability.

    Euler's method is less accurate and numerically unstable because dudt changes rapidly over an interval; this gives not a good approximation at the beginning of the process in comparison with the average value over the interval. The approximation error is proportional to the step size h. Hence, if h is not small enough this method is too inaccurate [27], [28].

    The Runge-Kutta method is the most popular numerical approach because it is quite accurate, stable and easy to program. This technique is the most widely used one since it gives starting values and is particularly suitable when the compilation of higher derivatives is complicated [27]. In this work, we review two types of Runge-Kutta method such as Runge-Kutta method of order two (RK2) and Runge-Kutta method of order four (RK4). They are effective numerical tools to solve high dimensional system of differential equations.

    The idea of Runge-Kutta (RK) method is the same as Euler's method; that is, we update each unknown function u1, u2, u3,…, and um, using the basic RK formulas and the appropriate right-hand-side function, f1 or f2 or f3 or fm. We now consider the the two-stage RK method (known as the “midpoint method”) [28]. For the midpoint method, if we denote the two update parameters as k1 and k2, then the basic second-order Runge-Kutta formulas are given below:

    k1=hf(ti,ui),k2=hf(ti+0.5h,ui+0.5k1),ui+1=ui+k2.

    To apply these formulas to the system (2.2), The parameters k1 and k2 for each unknown function should be computed. Consider an integer n > 0 and h=ban when atb, and ui(a) = αi for each i = 1,2,…,m. The values of the parameter k1 for the unknown functions u1, u2,…,um−1, and um are

    k1,j=hfj(t(i),u1(i),u2(i),,um(i)), for j=1,2,,m.

    Similarly, the values of k2 are

    k2,j=hfj(t(i)+0.5h,u1(i)+0.5k1,1,u2(i)+0.5k1,2,,um(i)+0.5k1,m),
    for j = 1,2,…,m. Finally, the values of the unknown functions at the next grid point are given:
    uj(i+1)=uj(i)+k2,j, for i=0,1,,n1

    It can be noticed that all the values k1,1, k1,2,…,k1,m should be computed before identifying the values k2,j, for j = 1,2,…,m.

    Another method for a single first order equation is the classical Runge-Kutta method of order four, it is given by

    u0=α,k1=hf(ti,ui),k2=hf(ti+h2,ui+12k1),k3=hf(ti+h2,ui+12k2),k4=hf(ti+1,ui+k3),ui+1=ui+16(k1+2k2+2k3+k4), for i=0,1,,n1,

    They can be used to solve the first-order initial-value problem given below:

    dudt=f(t,u),  atb,  u(a)=α.

    We now consider the classic fourth-order Runge-Kutta method for the system of ODEs (2.2). Let n be an integer > 0, set h=ban, when atb, and ui(a) = αi for each i = 1,2,…,m. Suppose that the values u1(i),u2(i),…,um(i) have been computed. We obtain u1(i+1),u2(i+1),…,um(i+1) by first calculating

    k1,j=hfj(ti,u1(i),u2(i),,um(i)),k2,j=hfj(ti+h2,u1(i)+12k1,1,u2(i)+12k1,2,,um(i)+12k1,m),k3,j=hfj(ti+h2,u1(i)+12k2,1,u2(i)+12k2,2,,um(i)+12k2,m),k4,j=hfj(ti+h,u1(i)+k3,1,u2(i)+k3,2,,um(i)+k3,m).

    Finally, the values of the unknown function at the next grid point are computed from

    uj(i+1)=uj(i)+16(k1,j+2k2,j+2k3,j+k4,j),
    for i = 0,1,…,n − 1 and j = 1,2,…,m.

    Runge-Kutta method is easy to implement and stable since it gives reliable values starting values and particularly suitable when the computation of higher-order derivatives are complicated [27]. It scores over the earlier methods in obtaining a better approximation of the solution and at the same time, it doesn't need to know derivatives of f.

    Though the Runge-Kutta method is quite accurate, stable, and easy to program, it is also very laborious. It is a lengthy process and needs to check back the values computed earlier [27]. Also, error estimation is not easy to be done. Moreover, it does not work well for stiff differential equations [28].

    The classical theory of chemical kinetics helps to understand and show the biological process in terms of mathematical modeling. The basic assumptions are introduced for set of components, reactions and their relations. We consider n reversible reactions which are given below

    mj=1aijxjk+ikimj=1bijxj,i=1,2,...,n,
    where xj, j = 1,2,…,m are chemical components, aij and bij are non–negative integers. The reaction constants are k+i>0 and ki0. Using the idea of mass action law, the model reaction rates are expressed as follows
    vi=k+imj=1xaijj(t)kimj=1xbijj(t).

    Therefore, the model mathematical equations are defined below

    dxdt=iJπivi.
    where πij = bijaij, for i = 1,2,…,n and j = 1,2,…,m. Equation (2.15) can be written as follows:
    dxjdt=hj(x,k),
    where x ∈ ℝm and k ∈ ℝn. The more details and descriptions about chemical reactions and their differential equations with some applications in system biology can be found in [29][32].

    The current coronavirus outbreak becomes a global health care problem. There are some preventions announced as strategies for controlling the infection such as reducing contacts as much as possible and advice people to stay at home. Mathematical models for this virus are effectively role to show model dynamics and estimate the infected number in the future. Recently, a mathematical model was suggested for showing individual interactions and calculating the model reproduction number. The model is based on the clinical progression, epidemiological individuals and intervention measures. Accordingly, the model combined with the intervention compartments such as treatment, isolation (hospitalization) and quarantine [16]. More recently, the model has been updated for time-dependent dynamic system [20]. We develop the model diagram and the interaction individual components with their interaction rates given in Figure 1. The model includes eight groups (individuals): susceptible S, exposed E, symptomatic I, pre-symptomatic A, quarantine susceptible Sq, quarantine exposed Eq, hospitalized H and recovered R. The model initial populations and interaction parameters are obtained for the confirmed cases in China. All parameter values and initial populations are given in Table 1. The estimated values were first defined in [16], then they were updated in [20]. We have mainly followed reference [20], and we used such values in our computational simulations. They used the Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) method to fit the model to the data, and assumed an adaptive Metropolis-Hastings (M-H) algorithm to carry out the MCMC procedure.

    Figure 1.  The model diagram the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) with interaction rates.

    The model reactions for the COVID–19 with their rats are defined below:

    Sv1E,Sv2Eq,Sv3Sq.Sqv4S,Ev5A,Ev6I,Eqv7H,Av8R,Iv9R,Iv10H,Iv11Death,Hv12R,Hv13Death,
    where v1 = k1(1−k3)U1S(I + k4A), v2 = k1k2U1S(I + k4A), v3 = k2(1−k1)U1S(I + k4A), v4 = k5Sq, v5 = k3(1−k6), v6 = k3k6, v7 = k7Eq, v8 = k9A, v9 = k8I, v10 = U2I, v11 = k11I, v12 = k10H, v13 = k11H.

    Table 1.  The estimated initial populations and parameters for coronavirus disease (COVID-19) with their biological definitions that have been updated from the confirmed cases in China [20].
    Parameters Biological definitions Values
    S(0) Initial susceptible individuals 11081000
    E(0) Initial exposed individuals 105.1
    I(0) Initial symptomatic individuals 27.679
    A(0) Initial pre-symptomatic individuals 53.839
    Sq(0) Initial quarantine susceptible individuals 739
    Eq(0) Initial quarantine exposed individuals 1.1642
    H(0) Initial hospitalized individuals 1
    R(0) Initial recovered individuals 2
    k1 Transmission per contact 2.1011×10−8
    k2 Quarantined exposed rate 1.2858×10−5
    k3 Transition rate between exposed and infected classes 17
    k4 The multiple of the transmissibility of A to I 0.3
    k5 Quarantined uninfected contact rate 114
    k6 Probability of symptomatic among infected people 0.86834
    k7 Transition rate between quarantined exposed quarantined infected classes 0.1259
    k8 Recovery rate from symptomatic infected 0.33029
    k9 Recovery rate from asymptomatic infected 0.13978
    k10 Recovery rate from quarantined infected 0.11624
    k11 Infected death rate 1.7826×10−5
    a Initial contact rate 14.781
    b Minimum contact rate 2.9253
    d Initial transition rate between symptomatic infected and quarantined infected class 0.13266
    1/e The shortest period of diagnosis 0.3654
    r1 Exponential decreasing rate of contact rate 1.3768
    r2 Exponential decreasing rate of diagnose rate 0.32029

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    The estimated values of initial populations and parameters given in Table 1. Using Eqs (2.14)(2.16), the model dynamics are described by the following system of non–linear ordinary differential equations

    dS(t)dt=(k1U1(t)+k2U1(t)(1k1))(I(t)+k4A(t))S(t)+k5Sq(t),dE(t)dt=k1U1(t)(1k2)(I(t)+k4A(t))S(t)k3E(t),dI(t)dt=k3k6E(t)(U2(t)+k8+k11)I(t),dA(t)dt=k3(1k6)E(t)k9A(t),dSq(t)dt=(1k1)k2U1(t)(I(t)+k4A(t))S(t)k5Sq(t),dEq(t)dt=k1k2U1(t)(I(t)+k4A(t))S(t)k7Eq(t),dH(t)dt=U2(t)I(t)+k7Eq(t)(k10+k11)H(t),dR(t)dt=k8I(t)+k9A(t)+k10H(t),U1(t)=(ab)er1t+b.U2(t)=e1+(ed1)er2t.

    The model initial populations are expressed in the following equation

    S(0)=S0>0,E(0)=E0>0,I(0)=I0>0,A(0)=A0>0,Sq(0)=S0q0,Eq(0)=E0q0,H(0)=H00,R(0)=R00.

    The non–linear system of differential equations given in Eq (3.2) can not solved analytically. Therefore, the suggested numerical techniques given in this paper can provide some approximate solutions for the COVID-19 model states. We use MATLAB for calculating numerical predictions using initial populations and estimated parameters given in Table 1.

    The high dimensional models of the spread of infectious diseases often can not be well understood only by biological approaches. This is why mathematical methods and computational simulations are effective tools that provide us more understanding and numerical predictions about model states. In this work, we applied three numerical approaches for describing the COVID-19 model dynamics and identifying critical model parameters. The numerical methods applied in this study are Euler method and Runge–Kutta method for order two and order four. The parameter values and initial populations in this study are obtained from the WHO situation report (the National Health Commission of the Republic of China ) presented in [16], [20]. We present these estimated values in Table 1.

    We calculate the numerical approximate solutions of the model Eq (3.2) for different parameters and initial populations using MATLAB, see Figures 2 and 3. Accordingly, this concludes that there is a different model dynamic for population model states. Numerical simulations are computed in two dimensional planes for the model variables using parameters and initial populations. More interestingly, there are a good agreement among all numerical approximate solutions based on the three proposed numerical approaches. Results in this study based on the computational simulations provide a good step forward in predicting the model dynamics in the future for development programs, interventions and health care strategies.

    Particularly, results in Figure 2 show the numerical predictions for the number of susceptible, exposed, symptomatic infected and pre-symptomatic infected individuals. It is clear that there are a good agreement among the suggested numerical approaches and they become more stable after 100 days. In addition, the dynamics of quarantine susceptible and hospitalized people are gradually changed when t ∈ [0,100] then they become more flat. On the other hands, the number of quarantine exposed individuals become stable quickly after t > 40 but the number of recovered people increases slightly and it is stable very slowly, see Figure 3. All numerical approximate results are presented in Tables A1–A6.

    Figure 2.  Numerical approximate solutions for the coronavirus disease model Eq (3.2) using Euler method, Runge-Kutta method for order two (RK2) and order four (RK4); (a): the number of susceptible populations S, (b): the number of exposed populations E, (c): the number of symptomatic populations I, (d): the number of pre-symptomatic populations A.
    Figure 3.  Numerical approximate solutions for the coronavirus disease model Eq (3.2) using Euler method, Runge-Kutta method for order two (RK2) and order four (RK4); (a): the number of quarantine susceptible populations Sq, (b): the number of quarantine exposed populations Eq, (c): the number of hospitalized populations H, (d): the number of recovered populations R.

    The function fitVirus03 applies a logistic model for estimation of final epidemic size from daily estimations [33]. The model is data–driven, so its forecast is as good as data are. Additionally, it is supposed that the model is a conceivable definition of the one-stage epidemic. In this section, we investigate the results of the two countries by the proposed model. All confirmed cases for Iraq and Turkey presented in Tables A7 and A8. We gave the results from 11 March 2020 to 9 April 2020 for Turkey. We demonstrated the results by Figure 4. We presented the results from 28 March 2020 to 4 April 2020 for Iraq. We demonstrated these results by Figure 5. Our results show that the infected rate is plotted with blue lines and blue dots are represented actual the daily number of cases. Separated phases given in Figures 4a and 5a are epidemic regions: red colors represent fast growth phase, yellow colors represent transition to steady-state and green colors show ending infected. Based on the computational results presented in Figures 4 and 5, the number of infected people in the two countries reached to the maximum on the April 2020, then it will gradually decreased and gets stable after June 2020.

    Figure 4.  Estimation of coronavirus COVID-19 epidemic size by the logistic model for Turkey.
    Figure 5.  Estimation of coronavirus COVID-19 epidemic size by the logistic model for Iraq.

    There are also many strategies and preventions as global efforts to reduce the impact of the COVID-19 around the world. Although, this pandemic becomes a global issue and speeding very fast but all clinical and theoretical studies give a great effort to control this disease. One of the theoretical tools that provide a wide range of predictions and estimations about this issue is mathematical modeling. Mathematical modeling with computational simulations give model predictions and identify key critical parameters. However, having many approaches for identifying such estimations and understanding this disease makes this issue remain unclear. Machine Learning (ML) and Cloud Computing effectively give predict growth of the epidemic and design strategies and policy to manage its spread [34]. This study provides an essential way to suggest more preventions compared to the previous approaches. Another step forward to analyze the dynamics of the COVOD-19 is using the idea of local sensitivity [35]. Based on this study, the sensitivity of each variable concerning the model parameters are calculated, and some model key elements are identified for more preventions and suggestions. More recent study about this issue is a qualitative and quantitative analysis for the model dynamics [36]. According to this study, some critical model parameters are identified, and this becomes an important tool to understand the global issue more effectively and widely. Comparing to all previous studies, our numerical approaches give a another great step forward to understand the model dynamics and predict the spreading of this disease on the community.

    Global efforts around the world are focused and discussed several health care strategies for controlling the spreading of the new coronavirus on community. It can be seen that this virus becomes a public health threat and spreading easily among individuals. The coronavirus disease (COVID–19) model is a complicated one, and it requires some mathematical tools to have improvements about interventions and healthcare programs. The COVID-19 is modeled based on clinical data and reported cases in Wuham-China. The model equations are non-linear differential equations that numerical approaches are required to have some numerical solutions.

    We applied the idea of Euler and Runge–Kutta methods to calculate some approximate solutions for each model state based on the reported cases. These provide us an important step forward to identify model critical elements and future model improvement. Computational results may help international efforts to reduce number of infected individuals from the disease and to prevent the conronavirus more widely on the community.

    Accordingly, some findings and computational results are given based on the suggested approaches for the COVID-19 model. Firstly, the model dynamics of all compartments are computed using three different numerical techniques. The dynamics of all compartment are investigated, the results provide a great step forward to predict and analyze the population of each model state. All estimated parameters and initial populations obtained for the confirmed cases in China. Secondly, the number of infected and recovered people for confirmed cases in Iraq and Turkey are also discussed. The computations simulations obtained using Matlab.

    Results in this study suggested that health care programs should more pay attention on the key critical model parameters. This may help community interventions that can reduce the impact of coronavirus disease. Computational results provide a key estimation and future predict easily about the number of infected individuals, susceptible individuals and recovered individuals. Accordingly, we have investigated forecasting epidemic size for Turkey and Iraq using the logistic model. It can be concluded that the suggested model is a reasonable description of this epidemic disease. Interestingly, the proposed steps here can further be developed and applied to a wide range of coronavirus models for different cases a round the world. They will be useful for future model improvements, interventions and vaccination programs.



    [1] Kwade C, Gadabu A, Addo V, et al. (2018) Genetic engineering development and acceptance in Sub Saharan Africa: Stakeholders and public opinion about GMO. J Appl Agric Econ Policy Anal 1: 22-30.
    [2] Jayne T, Govereh J, Mwanaumo A, et al. (2002) False promise or false premise? The experience of food and input market reform in Eastern and Southern Africa. World Dev 30: 1967-1985
    [3] Sarcheshmeh EE, Bijani M, Sadighi H (2018) Technology in Society Adoption behavior towards the use of nuclear technology in agriculture: A causal analysis. Technol Soc 55: 175-182. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2018.08.001. doi: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2018.08.001
    [4] Bailey R, Willoughby R, Grzywacz D (2014) On trial: Agricultural biotechnology in Africa. Energy Environ Resour 1-27.
    [5] Qaim M, Kouser S (2013) Genetically modified crops and food security. PloS one 8: e64879. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0064879
    [6] Séralini GE, Clair E, Mesnage R, et al. (2012) RETRACTED: Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize. Food Chem Toxicol 4221-4231. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2012.08.005.
    [7] Adenle AA, Morris EJ, Parayil G (2013) Status of development, regulation and adoption of GM agriculture in Africa: Views and positions of stakeholder groups. Food Policy 43: 159-166. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2013.09.006. doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2013.09.006
    [8] Rosegrant MW, Koo J, Cenacchi N, et al. (2014) Food security in a world of natural resource scarcity: The role of agricultural technologies. In: International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC, USA.
    [9] Rogers EM, Singhal A, Quinlan MM (2003) Diffusion of innovations/Everett M. Rogers. NY: Simon and Schuster, 576.
    [10] Costa-Font M, Gil JM, Traill WB (2008) Consumer acceptance, valuation of and attitudes towards genetically modified food: Revies and implications for food policy. Food Policy 33: 99-111. doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2007.07.002
    [11] Mannan S, Nordin SM, Rafik-Galea S, et al. (2017) The ironies of new innovation and the sunset industry: Diffusion and adoption. J Rural Studies 55: 316-322. doi: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2017.07.015
    [12] Ueland Ø, Gunnlaugsdottir H, Holm F, et al. (2012) State of the art in benefit-risk analysis: Consumer perception. Food Chem Toxicol 50: 67-76. doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2011.06.006
    [13] Rogers E (2003) Diffusion of innovations. New York: A Division of Simon and Schuster.
    [14] Ghane F, Samah BA, Ahmad A, et al. (2011) The role of social influence and innovation characteristics in the adoption of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) practices by paddy farmers in Iran. In: International Conference on Social Science and Humanity-IPEDR Singapore.
    [15] Peshin R, Vasanthakumar J, Kalra R (2009) Diffusion of innovation theory and integrated pest management. Integr Pest Manage: Dissemination Impact: 1-29. Springer, Dordrecht. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8990-9.
    [16] Robertson MJ, Llewellyn RS, Mandel R, et al. (2012) Adoption of variable rate fertiliser application in the Australian grains industry: Status, issues and prospects. Precis Agric 13: 181-199. doi: 10.1007/s11119-011-9236-3
    [17] Hirunyawipada T, Paswan AK (2006) Consumer innovativeness and perceived risk: Implications for high technology product adoption. J Consum Mark 23: 182-198. doi: 10.1108/07363760610674310
    [18] Taylor JW (1974) The role of risk in consumer behavior: A comprehensive and operational theory of risk taking in consumer behavior. J Mark 38: 54-60.
    [19] Gupta N, Fischer AR, Frewer LJ (2012) Socio-psychological determinants of public acceptance of technologies: A review. Public Understanding Sci 21: 782-795. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0963662510392485. doi: 10.1177/0963662510392485
    [20] Kim RB (2012) Consumer attitude of risk and benefits toward genetically modified (GM) foods in South Korea: Implications for food policy. Eng Econ 23: 189-199. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.5755/j01.ee.23.2.1548.
    [21] Gonçalves ME (2006) Risk and the governance of innovation in Europe: An introduction. Technol Forecasting Social Change 73: 1-12. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2005.06.008
    [22] Sjöberg L (2008) Genetically modified food in the eyes of the public and experts. Risk Manage 10: 168-193. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/rm.2008.2.
    [23] Miller DM, Meek F (2004) Cost and efficacy comparison of integrated pest management strategies with monthly spray insecticide applications for German cockroach (Dictyoptera: Blattellidae) control in public housing. J Econ Entomol 97: 559-569.
    [24] Sjakir M, Awang AH, Azima AM, et al. (2015) Learning and technology adoption impacts on farmer's productivity. Mediterr J Soc Sci 6: 126.
    [25] Kolodinsky JM, Hogarth JM, Hilgert MA (2004) The adoption of electronic banking technologies by US consumers. Int J Bank Market 22: 238-259.
    [26] Ronteltap A, Van Trijp JCM, Renes RJ, et al. (2007) Consumer acceptance of technology-based food innovations: Lessons for the future of nutrigenomics. Appetite 49: 1-17. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2007.02.002
    [27] Gaskell G, Bauer MW, Durant J, et al. (1999) Worlds apart? The reception of genetically modified foods in Europe and the US. Science 285: 384-387.
    [28] Talebian A, Mishra S (2018) Predicting the adoption of connected autonomous vehicles: A new approach based on the theory of diffusion of innovations. Transp Res Part C: Emerging Technol 95: 363-380.
    [29] Lagnaoui A, Santi E, Santucci F (2004) Strategic communication for integrated pest management. Paper first presented at the Annual Conference of the International Association for Impact Assessment in Vancouver, Canada (IAIA 2004) under the conference theme of Public Involvement and Risk Management. Available from: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/ extdevcomsusdevt/Resources/ipmcommfinal.pdf.
    [30] Bardin B, Perrissol S, Facca L, et al. (2017) From risk perception to information selection… And not the other way round: Selective exposure mechanisms in the field of genetically modified organisms. Food Quality Preference 58: 10-17. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2016.12.015. doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2016.12.015
    [31] Swartz DG, Strand IE (1981) Avoidance costs associated with imperfect information: The case of kepone. Land Econ 57: 139-150. doi: 10.2307/3145782
    [32] De Barcellos MD, Kügler JO, Grunert KG, et al. (2010) European consumers' acceptance of beef processing technologies: A focus group study. Innovative Food Sci Emerging Technol 11: 721-732. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifset.2010.05.003. doi: 10.1016/j.ifset.2010.05.003
    [33] Verbeke W, Ward RW (2001) A fresh meat almost ideal demand system incorporating negative TV press and advertising impact. Agric Econ 25: 359-374.
    [34] Rock J (2013) Food sovereignty and the Anti-GMO movement in Ghana. Modern Ghana. Available from: http://www.modernghana.com/news/487275/1/food-sovereignty-and-the-antigmo-movement-in-ghan.html.
    [35] Mabaya E, Fulton J, Simiyu-Wafukho S, et al. (2015) Factors influencing adoption of genetically modified crops in Africa. Dev South Afr 32: 577-591. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/0376835X.2015.1044078. doi: 10.1080/0376835X.2015.1044078
    [36] Ammar RAR, Shahrina N, Shamsuri S, et al. (2013) Communication management between organizations in a subsidized market: The Case of Paddy Fertilizer in Malaysia. Asian J Res Soc Sci Humanit 3: 1-16.
    [37] Dibden J, Gibbs D, Cocklin C (2013) Framing GM crops as a food security solution. J Rural Stud 29: 59-70. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2011.11.001. doi: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2011.11.001
    [38] Scott S (2008) East Asian experience in environmental governance: Response in a rapidly developing region‐edited by Zafar Adeel. Geogr Res 46: 126-127. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-5871.2007.00498.x
    [39] Horst M, Kuttschreuter M, Gutteling JM (2007) Perceived usefulness, personal experiences, risk perception and trust as determinants of adoption of e-government services in the Netherlands. Comput Human Behav 23: 1838-1852. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2005.11.003. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2005.11.003
    [40] Featherman MS, Pavlou PA (2003) Predicting e-services adoption: A perceived risk facets perspective. Int J Human Comput Studies 59: 451-474. doi: 10.1016/S1071-5819(03)00111-3
    [41] Stoner KA, Sawyer AJ, Shelton AM (1986) Constraints to the implementation of IPM programs in the USA: A course outline. Agric Ecosyst Environ 17: 253-268.
    [42] Vilella-Vila M, Costa-Font J (2008) Press media reporting effects on risk perceptions and attitudes towards genetically modified (GM) food. J Socio-Econo 37: 2095-2106. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2008.04.006. doi: 10.1016/j.socec.2008.04.006
    [43] Bearth A, Siegrist M (2016) Are risk or benefit perceptions more important for public acceptance of innovative food technologies: A meta-analysis. Trends Food Sci Technol 49: 14-23. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2016.01.003. doi: 10.1016/j.tifs.2016.01.003
    [44] Vänninen I, Siipi H, Keskitalo M, et al. (2009) Ethical compatibility of GM crops with intrinsic and extrinsic values of farms: A review. Open Ethics J 3: 104-117. doi: 10.2174/1874761200903030104
    [45] Fishbein M, Ajzen I (1975a) Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
    [46] Ajzen I (1991) The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Human Decis Processes 50: 179-211.
    [47] Burke J (2014) Biotechnology crop adoption: Potential and challenges of genetically improved crops. Encycl Agric Food Syst: 69-93.
    [48] Nordin SM, Noor SM, bin Md Saad MS (2014) Innovation diffusion of new technologies in the malaysian paddy fertilizer industry. Procedia-Soc Behav Sci 109: 768-778. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.12.542
    [49] Valente M, Chaves C (2018) Perceptions and valuation of GM food: A study on the impact and importance of information provision. J Cleaner Prod 172: 4110-4118. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.02.042. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.02.042
    [50] Aerni P (2005) Stakeholder attitudes towards the risks and benefits of genetically modified crops in South Africa. Environ Sci Policy 8: 464-476. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2005.07.001. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2005.07.001
    [51] Fishbein M, Ajzen I (1975b) Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
    [52] Pardo R, Midden C, Miller JD (2002) Attitudes toward biotechnology in the European Union. J Biotechnol 98: 9-24. doi: 10.1016/S0168-1656(02)00082-2
    [53] Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ (2010) Multivariate data analysis (7 Eds.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
    [54] Fornell C, Larcker D (1981) Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement errors. J Mark Res 18: 39-50. doi: 10.1177/002224378101800104
    [55] Chiu CM, Wang ET (2008) Understanding Web-based learning continuance intention: The role of subjective task value. Inf Manage 45: 194-201. doi: 10.1016/j.im.2008.02.003
    [56] Bagozzi RP, Yi Y, Phillips LW (1991) Assessing construct validity in organizational research. Administrative Sci Q: 421-458.
    [57] Arts JWC, Frambach RT, Bijmolt THA (2011) Generalizations on consumer innovation adoption: A meta-analysis on drivers of intention and behavior. Int J Res Mark 28: 134-144. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2010.11.002. doi: 10.1016/j.ijresmar.2010.11.002
    [58] Zhang Y, Jing L, Bai Q, et al. (2018) Application of an integrated framework to examine Chinese consumers' purchase intention toward genetically modified food. Food Quality Preference 65: 118-128. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2017.11.001. doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2017.11.001
    [59] Zhao X, Lynch Jr JG, Chen Q (2010) Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and truths about mediation analysis. J Consum Res 37: 197-206. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1086/651257. doi: 10.1086/651257
    [60] Gyau A, Voss J, Spiller A, et al. (2009) Farmer acceptance of genetically modified seeds in Germany: Results of a cluster analysis. Int Food Agribusiness Manage Rev 12(1030-2016-82757): 1-20.
    [61] Costa-Font M, Gil JM (2009) Structural equation modelling of consumer acceptance of genetically modified (GM) food in the Mediterranean Europe: A cross country study. Food Qual Preference 20: 399-409. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2009.02.011. doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2009.02.011
    [62] Chen MF, Li HL (2007) The consumer's attitude toward genetically modified foods in Taiwan. Food Qual Preference 18: 662-674. doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2006.10.002
    [63] Bredahl L, Grunert KG, Frewer LJ (1998) Consumer attitudes and decisionmaking with regard to genetically engineered food products. A review of the literature and a presentation of models for future research. J Consum Policy 21: 251-277.
    [64] Weick CW, Walchli SB (2002) Genetically engineered crops and foods: Back to the basics of technology diffusion. Technol Soc 24: 265-283. doi: 10.1016/S0160-791X(02)00008-8
    [65] Nelson CH (2001) Risk perception, behavior and consumer response to genetically modified organisms, toward and understanding American and European pubic reaction. Am Behav Sci 44: 1371-1388. doi: 10.1177/00027640121956737
    [66] Martinez-Poveda A, Brugarolas Molla-Bauza M, del Campo Gomis FJ, et al. (2009) Consumer-perceived risk model for the introduction of genetically modified food in Spain. Food Policy 34: 519-528. doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2009.08.001
    [67] Amin L, Mahadi Z, Samian AL, et al. (2013a) Risk perception towards food safety issues: GM foods versus non-GM foods. J Food Agric Environ 11: 28-35.
    [68] Onyango B, Govindasamy R (2004) Measuring US consumer preferences for genentically modified foods using choice modelling experiments: The role of price, product benefits and technology. In: American Agricultural Economics Association annual meeting, Colorado.
    [69] Amin L, Mahadi Z, Samian AL, et al. (2013b) Risk perception towards food safety issues: GM foods versus non-GM foods. J Food Agric Environ 11: 28-35.
  • This article has been cited by:

    1. Rana Muhammad Zulqarnain, Imran Siddique, Fahd Jarad, Rifaqat Ali, Thabet Abdeljawad, Ahmed Mostafa Khalil, Development of TOPSIS Technique under Pythagorean Fuzzy Hypersoft Environment Based on Correlation Coefficient and Its Application towards the Selection of Antivirus Mask in COVID-19 Pandemic, 2021, 2021, 1099-0526, 1, 10.1155/2021/6634991
    2. Jassim N. Hussain, Modeling and forecasting of COVID-19 infection cases in Iraq, 2021, 24, 0972-0502, 367, 10.1080/09720502.2020.1866316
    3. Amir Khan, Rahat Zarin, Ghulam Hussain, Noor Atinah Ahmad, Mohd Hafiz Mohd, Abdullahi Yusuf, Stability analysis and optimal control of covid-19 with convex incidence rate in Khyber Pakhtunkhawa (Pakistan), 2021, 20, 22113797, 103703, 10.1016/j.rinp.2020.103703
    4. Idris Ahmed, Emile F. Doungmo Goufo, Abdullahi Yusuf, Poom Kumam, Parin Chaipanya, Kamsing Nonlaopon, An epidemic prediction from analysis of a combined HIV-COVID-19 co-infection model via ABC-fractional operator, 2021, 60, 11100168, 2979, 10.1016/j.aej.2021.01.041
    5. Muhammad Asif, Saeed Ullah Jan, Nadeem Haider, Qasem Al-Mdallal, Thabet Abdeljawad, Numerical modeling of NPZ and SIR models with and without diffusion, 2020, 19, 22113797, 103512, 10.1016/j.rinp.2020.103512
    6. Neha Ghorui, Arijit Ghosh, Sankar Prasad Mondal, Mohd Yazid Bajuri, Ali Ahmadian, Soheil Salahshour, Massimiliano Ferrara, Identification of dominant risk factor involved in spread of COVID-19 using hesitant fuzzy MCDM methodology, 2021, 21, 22113797, 103811, 10.1016/j.rinp.2020.103811
    7. Lamiaa A. Amar, Ashraf A. Taha, Marwa Y. Mohamed, Prediction of the final size for COVID-19 epidemic using machine learning: A case study of Egypt, 2020, 5, 24680427, 622, 10.1016/j.idm.2020.08.008
    8. Muhammad Awais, Fehaid Salem Alshammari, Saif Ullah, Muhammad Altaf Khan, Saeed Islam, Modeling and simulation of the novel coronavirus in Caputo derivative, 2020, 19, 22113797, 103588, 10.1016/j.rinp.2020.103588
    9. Naushad Mamode Khan, Hassan S. Bakouch, Ashwinee Devi Soobhug, Manuel G. Scotto, Insights on the trend of the Novel Coronavirus 2019 series in some Small Island Developing States: A Thinning-based Modelling Approach, 2021, 60, 11100168, 2535, 10.1016/j.aej.2020.12.047
    10. Chernet Tuge Deressa, Yesuf Obsie Mussa, Gemechis File Duressa, Optimal control and sensitivity analysis for transmission dynamics of Coronavirus, 2020, 19, 22113797, 103642, 10.1016/j.rinp.2020.103642
    11. Parvaiz Ahmad Naik, Mehmet Yavuz, Sania Qureshi, Jian Zu, Stuart Townley, Modeling and analysis of COVID-19 epidemics with treatment in fractional derivatives using real data from Pakistan, 2020, 135, 2190-5444, 10.1140/epjp/s13360-020-00819-5
    12. Kamal Shah, Muhammad Arfan, Ibrahim Mahariq, Ali Ahmadian, Soheil Salahshour, Massimiliano Ferrara, Fractal-Fractional Mathematical Model Addressing the Situation of Corona Virus in Pakistan, 2020, 19, 22113797, 103560, 10.1016/j.rinp.2020.103560
    13. Rahim ud Din, Aly R. Seadawy, Kamal Shah, Aman Ullah, Dumitru Baleanu, Study of global dynamics of COVID-19 via a new mathematical model, 2020, 19, 22113797, 103468, 10.1016/j.rinp.2020.103468
    14. Asma Farooqi, Riaz Ahmad, Hammad Alotaibi, Taher A. Nofal, Rashada Farooqi, Ilyas Khan, A comparative epidemiological stability analysis of predictor corrector type non-standard finite difference scheme for the transmissibility of measles, 2021, 21, 22113797, 103756, 10.1016/j.rinp.2020.103756
    15. Tolga Omay, Dumitru Baleanu, Fractional unit-root tests allowing for a fractional frequency flexible Fourier form trend: predictability of Covid-19, 2021, 2021, 1687-1847, 10.1186/s13662-021-03317-9
    16. Elham T. Kateeb, Raed N. Juniedi, John J. Warren, Reopening Dental Offices for Routine Care Amid the COVID-19 Pandemic: Report From Palestine, 2021, 00206539, 10.1016/j.identj.2021.01.017
    17. Pietro M. Boselli, Massimo Basagni, Jose M. Soriano, Are There Any Parameters Missing in the Mathematical Models Applied in the Process of Spreading COVID-19?, 2021, 10, 2079-7737, 165, 10.3390/biology10020165
    18. Olumuyiwa James Peter, Sania Qureshi, Abdullahi Yusuf, Mohammed Al-Shomrani, Abioye Abioye Idowu, A New Mathematical Model of COVID-19 Using Real Data from Pakistan, 2021, 22113797, 104098, 10.1016/j.rinp.2021.104098
    19. Waheed Ahmad, Mujahid Abbas, Effect of quarantine on transmission dynamics of Ebola virus epidemic: a mathematical analysis, 2021, 136, 2190-5444, 10.1140/epjp/s13360-021-01360-9
    20. Yacine El hadj Moussa, Ahmed Boudaoui, Saif Ullah, Khursheed Muzammil, Muhammad Bilal Riaz, Application of fractional optimal control theory for the mitigating of novel coronavirus in Algeria, 2022, 39, 22113797, 105651, 10.1016/j.rinp.2022.105651
    21. Pratibha Verma, Surabhi Tiwari, Akanksha Verma, Theoretical and Numerical Analysis of Fractional Order Mathematical Model on Recent COVID-19 Model Using Singular Kernel, 2023, 0369-8203, 10.1007/s40010-022-00805-9
    22. W. Ahmad, M. Abbas, M. Rafiq, D. Baleanu, Mathematical analysis for the effect of voluntary vaccination on the propagation of Corona virus pandemic, 2021, 31, 22113797, 104917, 10.1016/j.rinp.2021.104917
    23. Yili Chen, Haoming He, Dakang Liu, Xie Zhang, Jingpei Wang, Yixiao Yang, Prediction of asymptomatic COVID‐19 infections based on complex network, 2021, 0143-2087, 10.1002/oca.2806
    24. Rahat Zarin, Numerical study of a nonlinear COVID-19 pandemic model by finite difference and meshless methods, 2022, 6, 26668181, 100460, 10.1016/j.padiff.2022.100460
    25. Faiza Arif, Zain Majeed, Jamshaid Ul Rahman, Naveed Iqbal, Jeevan Kafle, Evren Hincal, Mathematical Modeling and Numerical Simulation for the Outbreak of COVID-19 Involving Loss of Immunity and Quarantined Class, 2022, 2022, 1748-6718, 1, 10.1155/2022/3816492
    26. Muhammad Farman, Aqeel Ahmad, Ali Akg黮, Muhammad Umer Saleem, Muhammad Naeem, Dumitru Baleanu, Epidemiological Analysis of the Coronavirus Disease Outbreak with Random Effects, 2021, 67, 1546-2226, 3215, 10.32604/cmc.2021.014006
    27. Eslam Hossam, Alanazi Talal Abdulrahman, Ahmed M. Gemeay, Nawaf Alshammari, Etaf Alshawarbeh, Nour Khaled Mashaqbah, A novel extension of Gumbel distribution: Statistical inference with Covid-19 application, 2022, 61, 11100168, 8823, 10.1016/j.aej.2022.01.071
    28. Changjin Xu, Weaam Alhejaili, Sayed Saifullah, Arshad Khan, Javed Khan, M.A. El-Shorbagy, Analysis of Huanglongbing disease model with a novel fractional piecewise approach, 2022, 161, 09600779, 112316, 10.1016/j.chaos.2022.112316
    29. Mumtaz Khan, Amer Rasheed, The Space–Time Coupled Fractional Cattaneo–Friedrich Maxwell Model with Caputo Derivatives, 2021, 7, 2349-5103, 10.1007/s40819-021-01027-0
    30. Şuayip Yüzbaşı, Gamze Yıldırım, A Pell–Lucas Collocation Approach for an SIR Model on the Spread of the Novel Coronavirus (SARS CoV-2) Pandemic: The Case of Turkey, 2023, 11, 2227-7390, 697, 10.3390/math11030697
    31. Yogesh Gupta, Numerical analysis approach for models of COVID-19 and other epidemics, 2021, 12, 1793-9623, 2041003, 10.1142/S1793962320410032
    32. Ana Clara Gomes da Silva, Clarisse Lins de Lima, Cecilia Cordeiro da Silva, Giselle Machado Magalhães Moreno, Eduardo Luiz Silva, Gabriel Souza Marques, Lucas Job Brito de Araújo, Luiz Antônio Albuquerque Júnior, Samuel Barbosa Jatobá de Souza, Maíra Araújo de Santana, Juliana Carneiro Gomes, Valter Augusto de Freitas Barbosa, Anwar Musah, Patty Kostkova, Abel Guilhermino da Silva Filho, Wellington P. dos Santos, 2022, Chapter 18, 978-3-030-79752-2, 333, 10.1007/978-3-030-79753-9_18
    33. Jonner Nainggolan, Moch. Fandi Ansori, Stability and Sensitivity Analysis of the COVID-19 Spread with Comorbid Diseases, 2022, 14, 2073-8994, 2269, 10.3390/sym14112269
    34. Sunil Singh Negi, Pankaj Singh Rana, Nitin Sharma, Manvendra Singh Khatri, A novel SEIAHR compartment model for accessing the impact of vaccination, intervention policies, and quarantine on the COVID-19 pandemic: a case study of most affected countries Brazil, India, Italy, and USA, 2022, 41, 2238-3603, 10.1007/s40314-022-01993-1
    35. Higinio Ramos, Sania Qureshi, Amanullah Soomro, Adaptive step-size approach for Simpson’s-type block methods with time efficiency and order stars, 2021, 40, 2238-3603, 10.1007/s40314-021-01605-4
    36. Muhammad Farman, Ali Akg黮, Aqeel Ahmad, Dumitru Baleanu, Muhammad Umer Saleem, Dynamical Transmission of Coronavirus Model with Analysis and Simulation, 2021, 127, 1526-1506, 753, 10.32604/cmes.2021.014882
    37. Haimin Zhang, Min Xu, Graph neural networks with multiple kernel ensemble attention, 2021, 229, 09507051, 107299, 10.1016/j.knosys.2021.107299
    38. Muhammad Daniyal, Kassim Tawiah, Sara Muhammadullah, Kwaku Opoku-Ameyaw, Yi-Zhang Jiang, Comparison of Conventional Modeling Techniques with the Neural Network Autoregressive Model (NNAR): Application to COVID-19 Data, 2022, 2022, 2040-2309, 1, 10.1155/2022/4802743
    39. Haishuai Wang, Jiali Ma, Ziping Zhao, Zhenyi Jia, Zhenyan Ji, Jun Wu, Adversarial Training for Predicting the Trend of the COVID-19 Pandemic, 2022, 33, 1063-8016, 1, 10.4018/JDM.299560
    40. Sadia Arshad, Sadia Khalid, Sana Javed, Naima Amin, Fariha Nawaz, Modeling the impact of the vaccine on the COVID-19 epidemic transmission via fractional derivative, 2022, 137, 2190-5444, 10.1140/epjp/s13360-022-02988-x
    41. Ihsan Ullah Khan, Amjid Hussain, Shuo Li, Ali Shokri, Modeling the Transmission Dynamics of Coronavirus Using Nonstandard Finite Difference Scheme, 2023, 7, 2504-3110, 451, 10.3390/fractalfract7060451
    42. Syeda Alishwa Zanib, Tamour Zubair, Sehrish Ramzan, Muhammad Bilal Riaz, Muhammad Imran Asjad, Taseer Muhammad, Renier Mendoza, A conformable fractional finite difference method for modified mathematical modeling of SAR-CoV-2 (COVID-19) disease, 2024, 19, 1932-6203, e0307707, 10.1371/journal.pone.0307707
    43. Yadigar Sekerci, Sarbaz H. A. Khoshnaw, The impact of vaccination strategy on the spatiotemporal pattern dynamics of a COVID-19 epidemic model, 2024, 139, 2190-5444, 10.1140/epjp/s13360-024-04944-3
    44. Paras Soomro, Israr Ahmed, Faraz Ahmed Soomro, Darshan Mal, Numerical Simulation Model of the Infectious Diseases by Comparing Backward Euler Method and Adams-Bash forth 2-Step Method, 2024, 12, 2309-0022, 402, 10.21015/vtm.v12i1.1881
    45. Xiaoying Wang, Chunmei Li, Yilei Wang, Lin Yin, Qilin Zhou, Rui Zheng, Qingwu Wu, Yuqi Zhou, Min Dai, An intelligent prediction model of epidemic characters based on multi‐feature, 2024, 9, 2468-2322, 595, 10.1049/cit2.12294
    46. Jonner Nainggolan, 2024, 3132, 0094-243X, 020009, 10.1063/5.0211310
    47. Gamze Yıldırım, Şuayip Yüzbaşı, Numerical solutions and simulations of the fractional COVID‐19 model via Pell–Lucas collocation algorithm, 2024, 47, 0170-4214, 14457, 10.1002/mma.10284
    48. Rahat Zarin, Usa Wannasingha Humphries, Teerapol Saleewong, Advanced mathematical modeling of hepatitis B transmission dynamics with and without diffusion effect using real data from Thailand, 2024, 139, 2190-5444, 10.1140/epjp/s13360-024-05154-7
    49. Rajarama Mohan Jena, Snehashish Chakraverty, Shengda Zeng, Van Thien Nguyen, Non-singular kernel-based time-fractional order Covid-19 mathematical model with vaccination, 2023, 97, 0973-7111, 10.1007/s12043-023-02624-y
    50. Rahat Zarin, Usa Wannasingha Humphries, A robust study of dual variants of SARS-CoV-2 using a reaction-diffusion mathematical model with real data from the USA, 2023, 138, 2190-5444, 10.1140/epjp/s13360-023-04631-9
    51. Shuo Li, Nasir Hussain, Ihsan Ullah Khan, Amjid Hussain, Shewafera Wondimagegnhu Teklu, Fahad Al Basir, Epidemiological Characteristics of Generalized COVID-19 Deterministic Disease Model, 2023, 2023, 1607-887X, 1, 10.1155/2023/5811264
    52. Fathia Moh. Al Samma, N. Avinash, P. Chellamani, Nafisa A. Albasheir, Ameni Gargouri, G. Britto Antony Xavier, Mohammed M. A. Almazah, Exploring Symmetry in an Epidemiological Model: Numerical Analysis of Backward Bifurcation and Sensitivity Indices, 2024, 16, 2073-8994, 1579, 10.3390/sym16121579
    53. Jonner Nainggolan, Moch. Fandi Ansori, Hengki Tasman, An optimal control model with sensitivity analysis for COVID-19 transmission using logistic recruitment rate, 2025, 27724425, 100375, 10.1016/j.health.2024.100375
    54. Shivani Aeri, Rakesh Kumar, 2025, 9780443288142, 159, 10.1016/B978-0-44-328814-2.00014-X
    55. O. Ozan Evkaya, F. Sevinç Kurnaz, Ozancan Ozdemir, Pakize Yigit, Leveraging Ensemble and Hybrid Forecasting Tools to Increase Accuracy: Turkey COVID-19 Case Study, 2025, 6, 2661-8907, 10.1007/s42979-025-03658-2
  • Reader Comments
  • © 2019 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Metrics

Article views(7069) PDF downloads(1091) Cited by(8)

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return

Catalog