
Citation: Mohsen Bahmani-Oskooee, Sujata Saha. On the effects of policy uncertainty on stock prices: an asymmetric analysis[J]. Quantitative Finance and Economics, 2019, 3(2): 412-424. doi: 10.3934/QFE.2019.2.412
[1] | Ziqiang Cheng, Jin Wang . Modeling epidemic flow with fluid dynamics. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2022, 19(8): 8334-8360. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2022388 |
[2] | Cheng-Cheng Zhu, Jiang Zhu . Spread trend of COVID-19 epidemic outbreak in China: using exponential attractor method in a spatial heterogeneous SEIQR model. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2020, 17(4): 3062-3087. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2020174 |
[3] | Hamdy M. Youssef, Najat A. Alghamdi, Magdy A. Ezzat, Alaa A. El-Bary, Ahmed M. Shawky . A new dynamical modeling SEIR with global analysis applied to the real data of spreading COVID-19 in Saudi Arabia. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2020, 17(6): 7018-7044. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2020362 |
[4] | Tao Chen, Zhiming Li, Ge Zhang . Analysis of a COVID-19 model with media coverage and limited resources. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2024, 21(4): 5283-5307. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2024233 |
[5] | Jiangbo Hao, Lirong Huang, Maoxing Liu, Yangjun Ma . Analysis of the COVID-19 model with self-protection and isolation measures affected by the environment. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2024, 21(4): 4835-4852. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2024213 |
[6] | Wen Cao, Siqi Zhao, Xiaochong Tong, Haoran Dai, Jiang Sun, Jiaqi Xu, Gongrun Qiu, Jingwen Zhu, Yuzhen Tian . Spatial-temporal diffusion model of aggregated infectious diseases based on population life characteristics: a case study of COVID-19. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2023, 20(7): 13086-13112. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2023583 |
[7] | Fen-fen Zhang, Zhen Jin . Effect of travel restrictions, contact tracing and vaccination on control of emerging infectious diseases: transmission of COVID-19 as a case study. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2022, 19(3): 3177-3201. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2022147 |
[8] | Moritz Schäfer, Peter Heidrich, Thomas Götz . Modelling the spatial spread of COVID-19 in a German district using a diffusion model. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2023, 20(12): 21246-21266. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2023940 |
[9] | Ahmed Alshehri, Saif Ullah . A numerical study of COVID-19 epidemic model with vaccination and diffusion. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2023, 20(3): 4643-4672. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2023215 |
[10] | Haiyan Wang, Nao Yamamoto . Using a partial differential equation with Google Mobility data to predict COVID-19 in Arizona. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2020, 17(5): 4891-4904. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2020266 |
The prevalence of depression and anxiety disorder has shown a marked increase in the last years, thus highlighting their status as a growing worldwide public health issue [1]. Depression is characterized by persistent feelings of sadness, hopelessness, and a loss of interest or pleasure in activities, and is often accompanied by physical symptoms such as changes in appetite, sleep disturbances, and fatigue [2], and behavioral symptoms, which cover emotional, motivational, cognitive, and physiological domains, and include anhedonia and memory alterations [3]. Anxiety disorders involve excessive worry, fear, and physiological symptoms such as increased heart rate and restlessness, insomnia, and dizziness [4],[5]. Their treatment typically includes pharmacological approaches, such as antidepressants (e.g., selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors) and anti-anxiety medications, as well as psychological interventions such as cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), which focuses on restructuring negative thought patterns, and mindfulness-based interventions, which help individuals develop awareness and an acceptance of their thoughts and feelings. In this field, neuromodulation techniques, such as transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), have emerged as valuable strategies for patients who do not respond to traditional therapies, thus offering promising results in managing these debilitating conditions.
Repetitive TMS (rTMS) uses magnetic pulses that penetrate the scalp and reach the brain through a coil placed over a patient's head, and is based on the activation of neurons by depolarization [6]. It is usually used for both psychiatric and neurological disorders through inhibitory (1 Hz and continuous theta burst stimulation) or excitatory (>5 Hz and intermittent theta burst stimulation) protocols [7], with different levels of evidence according to the most recent guidelines [8]. In the treatment of depression and anxiety, the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) is an area of major interest, mostly identified using neuronavigation systems [9]. Otherwise, tDCS uses two electrodes (one anode and one cathode) which create a feeble continuous current (1–2 mA) and acts on cortical excitability [10]. It seems to be effective for the treatment of unipolar and bipolar depression, with effects for active versus sham tDCS considered small-to-medium in depressive symptoms [11],[12], and may also alleviate chronic anxiety disorders [13].
However, longer protocols demand a greater time investment and commitment from patients, and often leads to a poor compliance or logistical challenges that hinder the treatment completion. For this reason, achieving significant results within a shorter timeframe would be highly beneficial for patients.
Given this background, we decided to use a short and more intensive protocol of only 5 days that can act on both depression and anxiety symptoms. The distinctive feature of the protocol lies in the short timeframe and in the sequential application of combined tDCS and TMS techniques, aiming to maximize the neuromodulatory effect. rTMS induces synaptic plasticity in a frequency-dependent manner, thus producing effects similar to long-term potentiation (LTP) or depression (LTD); on the other hand, tDCS modulates the baseline excitability of neurons, which enhances it with anodal or cathodal stimulation, thereby making neural circuits more responsive to subsequent interventions. In this context, tDCS can prime the cortex, thus creating a more favorable state for TMS to induce stronger and more targeted neuroplastic changes [14],[15].
G. was a 68-year-old woman who suffered from depression and generalized anxiety disorder. Her psychopathological onset dates were recorded about 30 years ago and it was characterized by sadness and anxiety symptoms. From 2006 to 2015, a neurologist specialist prescribed prazepam and paroxetine for her; however, she had a poor compliance with pharmacological treatment over the years. She either decreased or stopped using the drugs on her own. She had a period of total remission (2015) which was interrupted by a cancer diagnosis. Over the last 10 years, there were periods of well-being alternating with periods of worsening symptoms.
The therapies prescribed during these years were as follows: delorazepam, citalopram, paroxetine, and venlafaxine. At the time the patient arrived at our observation, she was in a treatment comprised of duloxetine 30 mg/day, quetiapine 100 mg/day (slow-release formulation), and delorazepam 1 mg/day. She was referred to the neuromodulation clinic due to the persistence of mild symptoms despite the pharmacotherapy. The patient provided written informed consent after an explanation of the protocol design.
The protocol developed for her consisted of the combination of tDCS and rTMS (and for this reason we considered it intensive), and included two sessions/day separated by a 20-minute break for five consecutive days.
The first session provided anodal tDCS stimulation at the level of the left DLPFC (lDLPFC) followed by rTMS stimulation of the right DLPFC (rDLPFC). The brain areas were identified by locating landmarks through craniometric references, without the aid of magnetic resonance imaging. Specifically, the tDCS parameters were as follows: electrodes (PiSTIM) with a diameter of 12 mm and a circular surface area of approximately 3.14 cm2. The electrodes were placed at the DLPFC. Specifically, anodal stimulation was performed with a voltage of 2000 µA, at the level of the lDLPFC, and cathodic stimulation was performed on the corresponding area on the rDLPFC. A highly conductive saline gel was applied to each electrode, and the protocol lasted for 20 min and 4 seconds. The second session provided the same tDCS treatment as the first one but was followed by rTMS stimulation of the lDLPFC. The r-TMS protocol of the rDLPFC consisted of a frequency of 1Hz (parameters: 600 stimuli/session, 30 pulses/train, 20 total trains, 1 s inter-train interval at 80% motor threshold (MT) for the hand muscles); the rTMS protocol of the lDLPFC consisted of a frequency of 10Hz (parameters: 3000 stimuli/session,40 pulses/train,75 total trains, 26 s inter-train interval at 110% MT).
The Hamilton Anxiety Scale (HAM-A) and the Hamilton rating scale for depression (HAM-D) were used for the clinical assessment [16],[17]. These scales were administered twice to the patient: once before the beginning of treatment (T0) and once at the end of the treatment (T1). At T0, the score was indicative of mild anxiety (HAM-A score = 13) and mild depression (HAM-D score = 11). At T1, the scores indicated no depression or anxiety (HAM-A score = 2; HAM-D score = 4), which suggests that the patient reported remission of both the depression and anxiety symptoms (see Figure 1). Moreover, the tDCS/rTMS combination was well tolerated; the only one side effect was a slight headache after the first day of treatment, with a remission a few hours following its onset.
A follow up at 1 month (T2) and 3 months (T3) was conducted using the same assessment tools (Figure 1). At T2, the scales indicated a stable clinical condition (HAM-A = 5; HAM-D = 7), with a slight increase in both scales but no pathological score, and a worsening on both scales at T3, with a mild score in both anxiety and depression (HAM-A = 10; HAM-D = 8).
This case describes the effect of two combined neuromodulation techniques (tDCS and rTMS in succession), which, in a short time, have shown a good efficacy in reducing symptoms in a patient with depression and generalized anxiety.
The designed protocol included a first session of tDCS (2000 µA) followed by a low frequency rTMS stimulation of the rDLPFC, and then a second session provided the same tDCS treatment as the first one, followed by a high frequency rTMS stimulation of the lDLPFC. The effectiveness of this kind of protocol has already been investigated in literature, which described the sequential bilateral high frequency rTSM of the lDLPFC and a low frequency rTMS of the rDLPFC in depression and anxiety in comorbidity [18], an accelerated bilateral theta burst stimulation (TBS) for the treatment of depression [19], and the treatment of suicide ideation with a 5 consecutive day TBS protocol [20].
The choice of DLPFC as the target area of treatment arose from the observations of common prefrontal abnormalities, both in depression and anxiety [21], with a possible laterality in the expression and regulation [22].
The use of tDCS in this case also draws from literature data, which showed that an anodal stimulation of the lDLPFC had a level A of evidence in the treatment of depression [7]; however, there was not the same level of evidence in the treatment of anxiety, where tDCS was shown to lead to a reduction in symptoms compared to placebo [23], with optimal sessions lasting 20 minutes (sessions of 20, 30 or 60 minutes have been tested) and an optimal current intensity of 2 mA [24]. However, compared to common interventions which lasted more than 10 days [8], our case involved the use of combined techniques over just 5 days of treatment, thus ensuring an intensive, brief, and effective protocol which was psychologically well-tolerated by the patient.
In any case, a near-clinical stabilization was observed one month after the end of the treatment, followed by a deterioration at three months, thus suggesting the need to reinforce the intervention with at least monthly booster sessions. Considering the patient's age, this pattern may indicate that aging could contribute to a reduced duration of treatment effects, as neuroplasticity, which underlies the efficacy of neuromodulation techniques, tends to decline with age [25].
Moreover, it is possible that the prior use of medications for the treatment of depression (such as duloxetine, quetiapine, and benzodiazepines) may have limited the neuromodulatory effects of the applied techniques [26],[27]. However, neuromodulation techniques have also emerged as augmentation strategies for the treatment of anxiety and depression in individuals who exhibit partial or poor responses to pharmacological or psychotherapeutic interventions. Our study supports the potential of non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) techniques as effective augmentation or combination therapies for anxiety and depression, which is in agreement with other recent studies [23],[28],[29].
The results of the present case are promising, and demonstrated that combining two neuromodulation techniques (tDCS and rTMS) can effectively reduce the symptoms of depression and anxiety within just a few days of treatment.
Nevertheless, this study has some limitations. First, the identification of the brain areas was not performed using MRI-guided neuronavigation, which may have slightly reduced the accuracy of the stimulation targeting. Second, as this was a single case report, the findings cannot be generalized and should be considered exploratory. Therefore, further studies are warranted to improve the statistical power, investigate the long-term durability of the clinical effects, and assess the efficacy of the protocol in more severe cases. Future randomized controlled trials (RCTs) should aim to evaluate the broader applicability and potential limitations of this combined neuromodulation approach, thus contributing to a more comprehensive understanding of its therapeutic potential.
The authors declare they have not used Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools in the creation of this article.
[1] | Aftab M, Syed KBS, Katper NA (2017) Exchange-rate volatility and Malaysian-Thai bilateral industry trade flows. J Econ Stud 44: 99–114. |
[2] |
Al-Shayeb A, Hatemi-J A (2016) Trade openness and economic development in the UAE: an asymmetric approach. J Econ Stud 43: 587–597. doi: 10.1108/JES-06-2015-0094
![]() |
[3] | Anari A, Kolari J (2001) Stock prices and inflation. J Financ Res 24: 587–602. |
[4] |
Apergis N, Miller S (2006) Consumption Asymmetry and the Stock Market: Empirical Evidence. Econ Lett 93: 337–342. doi: 10.1016/j.econlet.2006.06.002
![]() |
[5] |
Arize AC, Malindretos J, Igwe EU (2017) Do Exchange Rate Changes Improve the Trade Balance: An Asymmetric Nonlinear Cointegration Approach. Int Rev Econ Financ 49: 313–326. doi: 10.1016/j.iref.2017.02.007
![]() |
[6] |
Baghestani H, Kherfi S (2015) An error-correction modeling of US consumer spending: are there asymmetries?. J Econ Stud 42:1078–1094. doi: 10.1108/JES-04-2014-0065
![]() |
[7] | Bahmani-Oskooee M (2019) The J-Curve and the Effects of Exchange Rate Changes on the Trade Balance, in Francisco L. Rivera-Batiz, eds., International Money and Finance, Volume 3 of Francisco L. Rivera-Batiz, ed., Encyclopedia of International Economics and Global Trade, World Scientific Publishing Co., Singapore, chapter 16, In press. |
[8] |
Bahmani-Oskooee M, Saha S (2016) Do Exchange Rate Changes have Symmetric or Asymmetric Effects on Stock Prices. Global Financ J 31: 57–72. doi: 10.1016/j.gfj.2016.06.005
![]() |
[9] | Bahmani-Oskooee M, Ghodsi H (2017) Policy Uncertainty and House Prices in the United States of America. J R Estate Portf Manage 23: 73–85. |
[10] |
Bahmani-Oskooee M, Kanitpong T (2018) Thailand's trade balance with each of her 15 largest partners: an asymmetry analysis. J Econ Stud 45: 660–672. doi: 10.1108/JES-10-2017-0307
![]() |
[11] | Bahmani-Oskooee M, Ghodsi H (2019) Asymmetric Causality between the U.S. Housing Market and its Stock Market: Evidence from State Level Data. J Econ Asymmetries, In press. |
[12] | Bahmani-Oskooee M, Saha S (2019) On the Effects of Policy Uncertainty on Stock Prices. J Econ Financ, In press. |
[13] | Bahmani-Oskooee M, Maki-Nayeri M (2019) Asymmetric Effects of Policy Uncertainty on Domestic Investment in G7 Countries. Open Econ Rev, In press. |
[14] |
Bahmani-Oskooee M, Kutan A, Kones A (2016) Policy Uncertainty and the Demand for Money in the United States. Appl Econ Q 62: 37–49. doi: 10.3790/aeq.62.1.37
![]() |
[15] | Bahmani-Oskooee M, Harvey H, Niroomand F (2018a) On the Impact of Policy Uncertainty on Oil Prices: An Asymmetry Analysis. Int J Financ Stud 6: 1–11. |
[16] |
Baker SR, Bloom N, Davis SJ (2016) Measuring Economic Policy Uncertainty. Q J Econ 131: 1593–1636. doi: 10.1093/qje/qjw024
![]() |
[17] | Boonyanam N (2014) Relationship of stock price and monetary variables of Asian small open emerging economy: Evidence from Thailand. Int J Financ Res 5: 52–63. |
[18] |
Brogaard J, Detzel A (2015) The Asset-Pricing Implications of Government Economic Policy Uncertainty. Manage Sci 61: 3–18. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.2014.2044
![]() |
[19] |
Durmaz N (2015) Industry Level J-Curve in Turkey. J Econ Stud 42: 689–706. doi: 10.1108/JES-08-2013-0122
![]() |
[20] |
Engle RF, Granger CWJ (1987) Cointegration and Error Correction: Representation, Estimation, and Testing. Econometrica 55: 251–276. doi: 10.2307/1913236
![]() |
[21] | Fama EF (1981) Stock returns, real activity, inflation and money. Am Econ Rev 71: 545–565. |
[22] |
Gogas P, Pragidis I (2015) Are there asymmetries in fiscal policy shocks?. J Econ Stud 42: 303–321. doi: 10.1108/JES-04-2013-0059
![]() |
[23] |
Granger CWJ, Huang BN, Yang CW (2000) A bivariate causality between stock prices and exchange rates: Evidence from recent Asian flu. Q Rev Econ Financ 40: 337–354. doi: 10.1016/S1062-9769(00)00042-9
![]() |
[24] | Groenewold N, Paterson JEH (2013) Stock prices and exchange rates in Australia: Are commodity prices the missing link?. Aust Econ Pap 52: 150–170. |
[25] |
Gregoriou A (2017) Modelling non-linear behaviour of block price deviations when trades are executed outside the bid-ask quotes. J Econ Stud 44: 206–213. doi: 10.1108/JES-03-2016-0050
![]() |
[26] |
Istiak K, Alam MR (2019) Oil prices, policy uncertainty and asymmetries in inflation expectations. J Econ Stud 46: 324–334. doi: 10.1108/JES-02-2018-0074
![]() |
[27] |
Kang W, Ratti R (2013) Oil Shocks, Policy Uncertainty and Stock Market Return. Int Financ Mark Inst Money 26: 305–318. doi: 10.1016/j.intfin.2013.07.001
![]() |
[28] |
Ko J-H, Lee C-M (2015) International Economic Policy Uncertainty and Stock Prices: Wavelet Approach. Econ Lett 134: 118–122. doi: 10.1016/j.econlet.2015.07.012
![]() |
[29] |
Lima L, Foffano C, Vasconcelos J, et al. (2016) The quantitative easing effect on the stock market of the USA, the UK and Japan: An ARDL approach for the crisis period. J Econ Stud 43: 1006–1021. doi: 10.1108/JES-05-2015-0081
![]() |
[30] |
Lin CH (2012) The co-movement between exchange rates and stock prices in the Asian emerging markets. Int Rev Econ Financ 22: 161–172. doi: 10.1016/j.iref.2011.09.006
![]() |
[31] |
Liu HH, Tu TT (2011) Mean-reverting and asymmetric volatility switching properties of stock price index, exchange rate and foreign capital in Taiwan. Asian Econ J 25: 375–395. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8381.2011.02069.x
![]() |
[32] | McFarlane A, Das A, Chowdhury M (2014) Non-linear dynamics of employment, output and real wages in Canada: Recent time series evidence. J Econ Stud 41: 54–568. |
[33] |
Moore T, Wang P (2014) Dynamic linkage between real exchange rates and stock prices: Evidence from developed and emerging Asian markets. Int Rev Econ Financ 29: 1–11. doi: 10.1016/j.iref.2013.02.004
![]() |
[34] |
Nieh CC, Lee CF (2001) Dynamic relationship between stock prices and exchange rates for G-7 countries. Q Rev Econ Financ 41: 477–490. doi: 10.1016/S1062-9769(01)00085-0
![]() |
[35] |
Nusair Salah A (2017) The J-curve Phenomenon in European Transition Economies: A Nonliear ARDL Approach. Int Rev Appl Econ 31:1–27. doi: 10.1080/02692171.2016.1214109
![]() |
[36] |
Olaniyi C (2019) Asymmetric information phenomenon in the link between CEO pay and firm performance: An innovative approach. J Econ Stud 46: 306–323. doi: 10.1108/JES-11-2017-0319
![]() |
[37] |
Pan MS, Fok RCW, Liu YA (2007) Dynamic linkages between exchange rates and stock prices: Evidence from East Asian markets. Int Rev Econ Financ 16: 503–520. doi: 10.1016/j.iref.2005.09.003
![]() |
[38] |
Pastor L, Veronesi P (2013) Political Uncertainty and Risk Premia. J Financ Econ 110: 520–545. doi: 10.1016/j.jfineco.2013.08.007
![]() |
[39] |
40.Pesaran MH, Shin Y, Smith RJ (2001) Bounds Testing Approaches to the Analysis of Level Relationships. J Appl Econ 16: 289–326. doi: 10.1002/jae.616
![]() |
[40] |
41.Phylaktis K, Ravazzolo F (2005) Stock prices and exchange rate dynamics. J Int Money Financ 24: 1031–1053. doi: 10.1016/j.jimonfin.2005.08.001
![]() |
[41] | 42.Richards ND, Simpson J, Evans J (2009) The interaction between exchange rates and stock prices: An Australian context. Int J Econ Financ 1: 3–23. |
[42] | 43.Shin Y, Yu B, Greenwood-Nimmo M (2014) Modelling asymmetric cointegration and dynamic multipliers in a nonlinear ARDL framework. In Festschrift in Honor of Peter Schmidt, Springer, New York, NY, 281–314. |
[43] | 44.Tsagkanos A, Siriopoulos C (2013) A long-run relationship between stock price index and exchange rate: A structural nonparametric cointegrating regression approach. J Int Financ Mark Inst Money 25: 106–118. |
[44] | 45.Tsai IC (2012) The relationship between stock price index and exchange rate in Asian markets: A quantile regression approach. J Int Financ Mark Inst Money 22: 609–621. |
[45] |
46.Wang Y, Chen CR, Huang YS (2014) Economic Policy Uncertainty and Corporate Investment: Evidence from China. Pac-Basin Financ J 26: 227–243. doi: 10.1016/j.pacfin.2013.12.008
![]() |
[46] | 47.Wimanda RE (2014) Threshold effects of exchange rate depreciation and money growth on inflation: Evidence from Indonesia. J Econ Stud 42: 196–215. |
[47] |
48.Yau HY, Nieh CC (2006) Interrelationships among stock prices of Taiwan and Japan and NTD/Yen exchange rate. J Asian Econ 17: 535–552. doi: 10.1016/j.asieco.2006.04.006
![]() |
1. | G. Dimarco, G. Toscani, M. Zanella, Optimal control of epidemic spreading in the presence of social heterogeneity, 2022, 380, 1364-503X, 10.1098/rsta.2021.0160 | |
2. | Giulia Bertaglia, Liu Liu, Lorenzo Pareschi, Xueyu Zhu, Bi-fidelity stochastic collocation methods for epidemic transport models with uncertainties, 2022, 17, 1556-1801, 401, 10.3934/nhm.2022013 | |
3. | Giacomo Albi, Giulia Bertaglia, Walter Boscheri, Giacomo Dimarco, Lorenzo Pareschi, Giuseppe Toscani, Mattia Zanella, 2022, Chapter 3, 978-3-030-96561-7, 43, 10.1007/978-3-030-96562-4_3 | |
4. | Gaël Poëtte, Multigroup-like MC resolution of generalised Polynomial Chaos reduced models of the uncertain linear Boltzmann equation (+discussion on hybrid intrusive/non-intrusive uncertainty propagation), 2023, 474, 00219991, 111825, 10.1016/j.jcp.2022.111825 | |
5. | Xiang Ren, Clifford P. Weisel, Panos G. Georgopoulos, Modeling Effects of Spatial Heterogeneities and Layered Exposure Interventions on the Spread of COVID-19 across New Jersey, 2021, 18, 1660-4601, 11950, 10.3390/ijerph182211950 | |
6. | Yukun Tan, Durward Cator III, Martial Ndeffo-Mbah, Ulisses Braga-Neto, A stochastic metapopulation state-space approach to modeling and estimating COVID-19 spread, 2021, 18, 1551-0018, 7685, 10.3934/mbe.2021381 | |
7. | Jody R. Reimer, Frederick R. Adler, Kenneth M. Golden, Akil Narayan, Uncertainty quantification for ecological models with random parameters, 2022, 25, 1461-023X, 2232, 10.1111/ele.14095 | |
8. | Matthieu Oliver, Didier Georges, Clémentine Prieur, Spatialized epidemiological forecasting applied to Covid-19 pandemic at departmental scale in France, 2022, 164, 01676911, 105240, 10.1016/j.sysconle.2022.105240 | |
9. | Giulia Bertaglia, Chuan Lu, Lorenzo Pareschi, Xueyu Zhu, Asymptotic-Preserving Neural Networks for multiscale hyperbolic models of epidemic spread, 2022, 32, 0218-2025, 1949, 10.1142/S0218202522500452 | |
10. | Alejandra Wyss, Arturo Hidalgo, Modeling COVID-19 Using a Modified SVIR Compartmental Model and LSTM-Estimated Parameters, 2023, 11, 2227-7390, 1436, 10.3390/math11061436 | |
11. | Rossella Della Marca, Nadia Loy, Andrea Tosin, An SIR model with viral load-dependent transmission, 2023, 86, 0303-6812, 10.1007/s00285-023-01901-z | |
12. | Mattia Zanella, Kinetic Models for Epidemic Dynamics in the Presence of Opinion Polarization, 2023, 85, 0092-8240, 10.1007/s11538-023-01147-2 | |
13. | Sudhi Sharma, Victorita Dolean, Pierre Jolivet, Brandon Robinson, Jodi D. Edwards, Tetyana Kendzerska, Abhijit Sarkar, Scalable computational algorithms for geospatial COVID-19 spread using high performance computing, 2023, 20, 1551-0018, 14634, 10.3934/mbe.2023655 | |
14. | Andrea Medaglia, Mattia Zanella, 2023, Chapter 15, 978-981-19-6461-9, 191, 10.1007/978-981-19-6462-6_15 | |
15. | Giacomo Albi, Elisa Calzola, Giacomo Dimarco, A data-driven kinetic model for opinion dynamics with social network contacts, 2024, 0956-7925, 1, 10.1017/S0956792524000068 | |
16. | Eloina Corradi, Maurizio Tavelli, Marie-Laure Baudet, Walter Boscheri, A high order accurate space-time trajectory reconstruction technique for quantitative particle trafficking analysis, 2024, 480, 00963003, 128902, 10.1016/j.amc.2024.128902 | |
17. | Andrea Bondesan, Giuseppe Toscani, Mattia Zanella, Kinetic compartmental models driven by opinion dynamics: Vaccine hesitancy and social influence, 2024, 34, 0218-2025, 1043, 10.1142/S0218202524400062 | |
18. | Roman Cherniha, Vasyl’ Dutka, Vasyl’ Davydovych, A Space Distributed Model and Its Application for Modeling the COVID-19 Pandemic in Ukraine, 2024, 16, 2073-8994, 1411, 10.3390/sym16111411 | |
19. | Giulia Bertaglia, 2023, Chapter 2, 978-3-031-29874-5, 23, 10.1007/978-3-031-29875-2_2 | |
20. | Giulia Bertaglia, Andrea Bondesan, Diletta Burini, Raluca Eftimie, Lorenzo Pareschi, Giuseppe Toscani, New trends on the systems approach to modeling SARS-CoV-2 pandemics in a globally connected planet, 2024, 34, 0218-2025, 1995, 10.1142/S0218202524500301 | |
21. | Giulia Bertaglia, Lorenzo Pareschi, Giuseppe Toscani, Modelling contagious viral dynamics: a kinetic approach based on mutual utility, 2024, 21, 1551-0018, 4241, 10.3934/mbe.2024187 | |
22. | Federico Ferraccioli, Nikolaos I. Stilianakis, Vladimir M. Veliov, A spatial epidemic model with contact and mobility restrictions, 2024, 30, 1387-3954, 284, 10.1080/13873954.2024.2341693 | |
23. | Daniel Ugochukwu Nnaji, Phineas Roy Kiogora, Ifeanyi Sunday Onah, Joseph Mung’atu, Nnaemeka Stanley Aguegboh, Application of fluid dynamics in modeling the spatial spread of infectious diseases with low mortality rate: A study using MUSCL scheme, 2024, 12, 2544-7297, 10.1515/cmb-2024-0016 | |
24. | Yi Jiang, Kristin M. Kurianski, Jane HyoJin Lee, Yanping Ma, Daniel Cicala, Glenn Ledder, Incorporating changeable attitudes toward vaccination into compartment models for infectious diseases, 2025, 22, 1551-0018, 260, 10.3934/mbe.2025011 | |
25. | Thiago Silva, Patrick Ciarelli, Jugurta Montalvão, Evandro Salles, Modeling time to first COVID-19 infection in Brazilian cities connected to larger cities under exponential infection growth, 2025, 41, 2446-4732, 10.1007/s42600-024-00395-y | |
26. | Andrea Bondesan, Antonio Piralla, Elena Ballante, Antonino Maria Guglielmo Pitrolo, Silvia Figini, Fausto Baldanti, Mattia Zanella, Predictability of viral load dynamics in the early phases of SARS-CoV-2 through a model-based approach, 2025, 22, 1551-0018, 725, 10.3934/mbe.2025027 | |
27. | Giacomo Albi, Elisa Calzola, Giacomo Dimarco, Mattia Zanella, Impact of Opinion Formation Phenomena in Epidemic Dynamics: Kinetic Modeling on Networks, 2025, 85, 0036-1399, 779, 10.1137/24M1696901 | |
28. | Muhammad Awais, Abu Safyan Ali, Giacomo Dimarco, Federica Ferrarese, Lorenzo Pareschi, A data augmentation strategy for deep neural networks with application to epidemic modelling, 2025, 1972-6724, 10.1007/s40574-025-00486-3 |