Introduction

AUTHOR=Li Zhuoyang , Lin Shengnan , Rui Jia , Bai Yao , Deng Bin , Chen Qiuping , Zhu Yuanzhao , Luo Li , Yu Shanshan , Liu Weikang , Zhang Shi , Su Yanhua , Zhao Benhua , Zhang Hao , Chiang Yi-Chen , Liu Jianhua , Luo Kaiwei , Chen Tianmu TITLE=An Easy-to-Use Public Health-Driven Method (the Generalized Logistic Differential Equation Model) Accurately Simulated COVID-19 Epidemic in Wuhan and Correctly Determined the Early Warning Time JOURNAL=Frontiers in Public Health VOLUME=Volume 10 - 2022 YEAR=2022 URL=https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/public-health/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2022.813860 DOI=10.3389/fpubh.2022.813860 ISSN=2296-2565 ABSTRACT=Introduction

Modeling on infectious diseases is significant to facilitate public health policymaking. There are two main mathematical methods that can be used for the simulation of the epidemic and prediction of optimal early warning timing: the logistic differential equation (LDE) model and the more complex generalized logistic differential equation (GLDE) model. This study aimed to compare and analyze these two models.

Methods

We collected data on (coronavirus disease 2019) COVID-19 and four other infectious diseases and classified the data into four categories: different transmission routes, different epidemic intensities, different time scales, and different regions, using R² to compare and analyze the goodness-of-fit of LDE and GLDE models.

Results

Both models fitted the epidemic curves well, and all results were statistically significant. The R² test value of COVID-19 was 0.924 (p < 0.001) fitted by the GLDE model and 0.916 (p < 0.001) fitted by the LDE model. The R² test value varied between 0.793 and 0.966 fitted by the GLDE model and varied between 0.594 and 0.922 fitted by the LDE model for diseases with different transmission routes. The R² test values varied between 0.853 and 0.939 fitted by the GLDE model and varied from 0.687 to 0.769 fitted by the LDE model for diseases with different prevalence intensities. The R² test value varied between 0.706 and 0.917 fitted by the GLDE model and varied between 0.410 and 0.898 fitted by the LDE model for diseases with different time scales. The GLDE model also performed better with nation-level data with the R² test values between 0.897 and 0.970 vs. 0.731 and 0.953 that fitted by the LDE model. Both models could characterize the patterns of the epidemics well and calculate the acceleration weeks.

Conclusion

The GLDE model provides more accurate goodness-of-fit to the data than the LDE model. The GLDE model is able to handle asymmetric data by introducing shape parameters that allow it to fit data with various distributions. The LDE model provides an earlier epidemic acceleration week than the GLDE model. We conclude that the GLDE model is more advantageous in asymmetric infectious disease data simulation.