
Citation: Yuyi Xue, Yanni Xiao. Analysis of a multiscale HIV-1 model coupling within-host viral dynamics and between-host transmission dynamics[J]. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2020, 17(6): 6720-6736. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2020350
[1] | Debao Yan . Existence results of fractional differential equations with nonlocal double-integral boundary conditions. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2023, 20(3): 4437-4454. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2023206 |
[2] | Abdon Atangana, Jyoti Mishra . Analysis of nonlinear ordinary differential equations with the generalized Mittag-Leffler kernel. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2023, 20(11): 19763-19780. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2023875 |
[3] | Allaberen Ashyralyev, Evren Hincal, Bilgen Kaymakamzade . Crank-Nicholson difference scheme for the system of nonlinear parabolic equations observing epidemic models with general nonlinear incidence rate. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2021, 18(6): 8883-8904. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2021438 |
[4] | Sebastian Builes, Jhoana P. Romero-Leiton, Leon A. Valencia . Deterministic, stochastic and fractional mathematical approaches applied to AMR. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2025, 22(2): 389-414. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2025015 |
[5] | Hardik Joshi, Brajesh Kumar Jha, Mehmet Yavuz . Modelling and analysis of fractional-order vaccination model for control of COVID-19 outbreak using real data. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2023, 20(1): 213-240. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2023010 |
[6] | Barbara Łupińska, Ewa Schmeidel . Analysis of some Katugampola fractional differential equations with fractional boundary conditions. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2021, 18(6): 7269-7279. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2021359 |
[7] | Jian Huang, Zhongdi Cen, Aimin Xu . An efficient numerical method for a time-fractional telegraph equation. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2022, 19(5): 4672-4689. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2022217 |
[8] | Yingying Xu, Chunhe Song, Chu Wang . Few-shot bearing fault detection based on multi-dimensional convolution and attention mechanism. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2024, 21(4): 4886-4907. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2024216 |
[9] | H. M. Srivastava, Khaled M. Saad, J. F. Gómez-Aguilar, Abdulrhman A. Almadiy . Some new mathematical models of the fractional-order system of human immune against IAV infection. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2020, 17(5): 4942-4969. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2020268 |
[10] | Guodong Li, Ying Zhang, Yajuan Guan, Wenjie Li . Stability analysis of multi-point boundary conditions for fractional differential equation with non-instantaneous integral impulse. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2023, 20(4): 7020-7041. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2023303 |
Fractional calculus is a main branch of mathematics that can be considered as the generalisation of integration and differentiation to arbitrary orders. This hypothesis begins with the assumptions of L. Euler (1730) and G. W. Leibniz (1695). Fractional differential equations (FDEs) have lately gained attention and publicity due to their realistic and accurate computations [1,2,3,4,5,6,7]. There are various types of fractional derivatives, including Riemann–Liouville, Caputo, Grü nwald–Letnikov, Weyl, Marchaud, and Atangana. This topic's history can be found in [8,9,10,11]. Undoubtedly, fractional calculus applies to mathematical models of different phenomena, sometimes more effectively than ordinary calculus [12,13]. As a result, it can illustrate a wide range of dynamical and engineering models with greater precision. Applications have been developed and investigated in a variety of scientific and engineering fields over the last few decades, including bioengineering [14], mechanics [15], optics [16], physics [17], mathematical biology, electrical power systems [18,19,20] and signal processing [21,22,23].
One of the definitions of fractional derivatives is Caputo-Fabrizo, which adds a new dimension in the study of FDEs. The new derivative's feature is that it has a nonsingular kernel, which is made from a combination of an ordinary derivative with an exponential function, but it has the same supplementary motivating properties with various scales as in the Riemann-Liouville fractional derivatives and Caputo. The Caputo-Fabrizio fractional derivative has been used to solve real-world problems in numerous areas of mathematical modelling for example, numerical solutions for groundwater pollution, the movement of waves on the surface of shallow water modelling [24], RLC circuit modelling [25], and heat transfer modelling [26,27] were discussed.
Rach (1987), Bellomo and Sarafyan (1987) first compared the Adomian Decomposition method (ADM) [28,29,30,31,32] to the Picard method on a variety of examples. These methods have many benefits: they effectively work with various types of linear and nonlinear equations and also provide an analytic solution for all of these equations with no linearization or discretization. These methods are more realistic compared with other numerical methods as each technique is used to solve a specific type of equations, on the other hand ADM and Picard are useful for many types of equations. In the numerical examples provided, we compare ADM and Picard solutions of multidimentional fractional order equations with Caputo-Fabrizio.
The fractional derivative of Caputo-Fabrizio for the function x(t) is defined as [33]
CFDα0x(t)=B(α)1−α∫t0dds(x(s)) e−α1−α(t−s)ds, | (1.1) |
and its corresponding fractional integral is
CFIαx(t)=1−αB(α)x(t)+αB(α)∫t0x (s)ds, 0<α<1, | (1.2) |
where x(t) be continuous and differentiable on [0, T]. Also, in the above definition, the function B(α)>0 is a normalized function which satisfy the condition B(0)=B(1)=0. The relation between the Caputo–Fabrizio fractional derivate and its corresponding integral is given by
(CFIα0)(CFDα0f(t))=f(t)−f(a). | (1.3) |
In this section, we will introduce a multidimentional FDE subject to the initial condition. Let α∈(0,1], 0<α1<α2<...,αm<1, and m is integer real number,
CFDx=f(t,x,CFDα1x,CFDα2x,...,CFDαmx,) ,x(0)=c0, | (2.1) |
where x=x(t),t∈J=[0,T],T∈R+,x∈C(J).
To facilitate the equation and make it easy for the calculation, we let x(t)=c0+X(t) so Eq (2.1) can be witten as
CFDαX=f(t,c0+X,CFDα1X,CFDα2X,...,CFDαmX), X(0)=0. | (2.2) |
the algorithm depends on converting the initial condition from a constant c0 to 0.
Let CFDαX=y(t) then X=CFIαy, so we have
CFDαiX= CFIα−αi CFDαX= CFIα−αiy, i=1,2,...,m. | (2.3) |
Substituting in Eq (2.2) we obtain
y=f(t,c0+ CFIαy, CFIα−α1y,..., CFIα−αmy). | (2.4) |
Assume f satisfies Lipschtiz condition with Lipschtiz constant L given by,
|f(t,y0,y1,...,ym)|−|f(t,z0,z1,...,zm)|≤Lm∑i=0|yi−zi|, | (2.5) |
which implies
|f(t,c0+CFIαy,CFIα−α1y,..,CFIα−αmy)−f(t,c0+CFIαz,CFIα−α1z,..,CFIα−αmz)|≤Lm∑i=0| CFIα−αiy− CFIα−αiz|. | (2.6) |
The solution algorithm of Eq (2.4) using ADM is,
y0(t)=a(t)yn+1(t)=An(t), j⩾0. | (2.7) |
where a(t) pocesses all free terms in Eq (2.4) and An are the Adomian polynomials of the nonlinear term which takes the form [34]
An=f(Sn)−n−1∑i=0Ai, | (2.8) |
where f(Sn)=∑ni=0Ai. Later, this accelerated formula of Adomian polynomial will be used in convergence analysis and error estimation. The solution of Eq (2.4) can be written in the form,
y(t)=∞∑i=0yi(t). | (2.9) |
lastly, the solution of the Eq (2.4) takes the form
x(t)=c0+X(t)=c0+ CFIαy(t). | (2.10) |
At which we convert the parameter to the initial form y to x in Eq (2.10), so we have the solution of the original Eq (2.1).
Define a mapping F:E→E where E=(C[J],‖⋅‖) is a Banach space of all continuous functions on J with the norm ‖x‖= maxtϵJx(t).
Theorem 3.1. Equation (2.4) has a unique solution whenever 0<ϕ<1 where ϕ=L(∑mi=0[(α−αi)(T−1)]+1B(α−αi)).
Proof. First, we define the mapping F:E→E as
Fy=f(t,c0+ CFIαy, CFIα−α1y,..., CFIα−αmy). |
Let y and z∈E are two different solutions of Eq (2.4). Then
Fy−Fz=f(t,c0+CFIαy,CFIα−α1y,..,CFIα−αmy)−f(t,c0+CFIαz,CFIα−α1z,...,CFIα−αmz) |
which implies that
|Fy−Fz|=|f(t,c0+ CFIαy, CFIα−α1y,..., CFIα−αmy)−f(t,c0+ CFIαz, CFIα−α1z,..., CFIα−αmz)|≤Lm∑i=0| CFIα−αiy− CFIα−αiz|≤Lm∑i=0|1−(α−αi)B(α−αi)(y−z)+α−αiB(α−αi)∫t0(y−z)ds|‖Fy−Fz‖≤Lm∑i=01−(α−αi)B(α−αi)maxtϵJ|y−z|+α−αiB(α−αi)maxtϵJ|y−z|∫t0ds≤Lm∑i=01−(α−αi)B(α−αi)‖y−z‖+α−αiB(α−αi)‖y−z‖T≤L‖y−z‖(m∑i=01−(α−αi)B(α−αi)+α−αiB(α−αi)T)≤L‖y−z‖(m∑i=0[(α−αi)(T−1)]+1B(α−αi))≤ϕ‖y−z‖. |
under the condition 0<ϕ<1, the mapping F is contraction and hence there exists a unique solution y∈C[J] for the problem Eq (2.4) and this completes the proof.
Theorem 3.2. The series solution of the problem Eq (2.4)converges if |y1(t)|<c and c isfinite.
Proof. Define a sequence {Sp} such that Sp=∑pi=0yi(t) is the sequence of partial sums from the series solution ∑∞i=0yi(t), we have
f(t,c0+ CFIαy, CFIα−α1y,..., CFIα−αmy)=∞∑i=0Ai, |
So
f(t,c0+ CFIαSp, CFIα−α1Sp,..., CFIα−αmSp)=p∑i=0Ai, |
From Eq (2.7) we have
∞∑i=0yi(t)=a(t)+∞∑i=0Ai−1 |
let Sp,Sq be two arbitrary sums with p⩾q. Now, we are going to prove that {Sp} is a Caushy sequence in this Banach space. We have
Sp=p∑i=0yi(t)=a(t)+p∑i=0Ai−1,Sq=q∑i=0yi(t)=a(t)+q∑i=0Ai−1. |
Sp−Sq=p∑i=0Ai−1−q∑i=0Ai−1=p∑i=q+1Ai−1=p−1∑i=qAi−1=f(t,c0+ CFIαSp−1, CFIα−α1Sp−1,..., CFIα−αmSp−1)−f(t,c0+ CFIαSq−1, CFIα−α1Sq−1,..., CFIα−αmSq−1) |
|Sp−Sq|=|f(t,c0+ CFIαSp−1, CFIα−α1Sp−1,..., CFIα−αmSp−1)−f(t,c0+ CFIαSq−1, CFIα−α1Sq−1,..., CFIα−αmSq−1)|≤Lm∑i=0| CFIα−αiSp−1− CFIα−αiSq−1|≤Lm∑i=0|1−(α−αi)B(α−αi)(Sp−1−Sq−1)+α−αiB(α−αi)∫t0(Sp−1−Sq−1)ds|≤Lm∑i=01−(α−αi)B(α−αi)|Sp−1−Sq−1|+α−αiB(α−αi)∫t0|Sp−1−Sq−1|ds |
‖Sp−Sq‖≤Lm∑i=01−(α−αi)B(α−αi)maxtϵJ|Sp−1−Sq−1|+α−αiB(α−αi)maxtϵJ|Sp−1−Sq−1|∫t0ds≤L‖Sp−Sq‖m∑i=0(1−(α−αi)B(α−αi)+α−αiB(α−αi)T)≤L‖Sp−Sq‖(m∑i=0[(α−αi)(T−1)]+1B(α−αi))≤ϕ‖Sp−Sq‖ |
let p=q+1 then,
‖Sq+1−Sq‖≤ϕ‖Sq−Sq−1‖≤ϕ2‖Sq−1−Sq−2‖≤...≤ϕq‖S1−S0‖ |
From the triangle inequality we have
‖Sp−Sq‖≤‖Sq+1−Sq‖+‖Sq+2−Sq+1‖+...‖Sp−Sp−1‖≤[ϕq+ϕq+1+...+ϕp−1]‖S1−S0‖≤ϕq[1+ϕ+...+ϕp−q+1]‖S1−S0‖≤ϕq[1−ϕp−q1−ϕ]‖y1(t)‖ |
Since 0<ϕ<1,p⩾q then (1−ϕp−q)≤1. Consequently
‖Sp−Sq‖≤ϕq1−ϕ‖y1(t)‖≤ϕq1−ϕmax∀tϵJ|y1(t)| | (3.1) |
but |y1(t)|<∞ and as q→∞ then, ‖Sp−Sq‖→0 and hence, {Sp} is a Caushy sequence in this Banach space then the proof is complete.
Theorem 3.3. The maximum absolute truncated error Eq (2.4)is estimated to be maxtϵJ|y(t)−∑qi=0yi(t)|≤ϕq1−ϕmaxtϵJ|y1(t)|
Proof. From the convergence theorm inequality (Eq 3.1) we have
‖Sp−Sq‖≤ϕq1−ϕmaxtϵJ|y1(t)| |
but, Sp=∑pi=0yi(t) as p→∞ then, Sp→y(t) so,
‖y(t)−Sq‖≤ϕq1−ϕmaxtϵJ|y1(t)| |
so, the maximum absolute truncated error in the interval J is,
maxtϵJ|y(t)−q∑i=0yi(t)|≤ϕq1−ϕmaxtϵJ|y1(t)| | (3.2) |
and this completes the proof.
In this part, we introduce several numerical examples with unkown exact solution and we will use inequality (Eq 3.2) to estimate the maximum absolute truncated error.
Example 4.1. Application of linear FDE
CFDx(t)+2aCFD1/2x(t)+bx(t)=0, x(0)=1. | (4.1) |
A Basset problem in fluid dynamics is a classical problem which is used to study the unsteady movement of an accelerating particle in a viscous fluid under the action of the gravity [36]
Set
X(t)=x(t)−1 |
Equation (4.1) will be
CFDX(t)+2aCFD1/2X(t)+bX(t)=0, X(0)=0. | (4.2) |
Appling Eq (2.3) to Eq (4.2), and using initial condition, also we take a = 1, b = 1/2,
y=−12−2I1/2y−12I y | (4.3) |
Appling ADM to Eq (4.3), we find the solution algorithm become
y0(t)=−12,yi(t)=−2 CFI1/2yi−1−12 CFI yi−1, i≥1. | (4.4) |
Appling Picard solution to Eq (4.2), we find the solution algorithm become
y0(t)=−12,yi(t)=−12−2 CFI1/2yi−1−12 CFI yi−1, i≥1. | (4.5) |
From Eq (4.4), the solution using ADM is given by y(t)=Limq→∞qi=0yi(t) while from Eq (4.5), the solution using Picard technique is given by y(t)=Limi→∞yi(t). Lately, the solution of the original problem Eq (4.2), is
x(t)=1+ CFI y(t). |
One the same processor (q = 20), the time consumed using ADM is 0.037 seconds, while the time consumed using Picard is 7.955 seconds.
Figure 1 gives a comparison between ADM and Picard solution of Ex. 4.1.
Example 4.2. Consider the following nonlinear FDE [35]
CFD1/2x=8t3/23√π−t7/44Γ(114)−t44+18 CFD1/4x+14x2, x(0)=0. | (4.6) |
Appling Eq (2.3) to Eq (4.6), and using initial condition,
y=8t3/23√π−t7/44Γ(114)−t44+18 CFI1/4y+14(CFI1/2y)2. | (4.7) |
Appling ADM to Eq (4.7), we find the solution algorithm will be become
y0(t)=8t3/23√π−t7/44Γ(114)−t44,yi(t)=18 CFI1/4yi−1+14(Ai−1), i≥1. | (4.8) |
at which Ai are Adomian polynomial of the nonliner term (CFI1/2y)2.
Appling Picard solution to Eq (4.7), we find the the solution algorithm become
y0(t)=8t3/23√π−t7/44Γ(114)−t44,yi(t)=y0(t)+18 CFI1/4yi−1+14(CFI1/2yi−1)2, i≥1. | (4.9) |
From Eq (4.8), the solution using ADM is given by y(t)=Limq→∞qi=0yi(t) while from Eq (4.9), the solution using Picard technique is given by y(t)=Limi→∞yi(t). Finally, the solution of the original problem Eq (4.7), is.
x(t)= CFI1/2y. |
One the same processor (q = 2), the time consumed using ADM is 65.13 seconds, while the time consumed using Picard is 544.787 seconds.
Table 1 showed the maximum absolute truncated error of of ADM solution (using Theorem 3.3) at different values of m (when t = 0:5; N = 2):
q | max. absolute error |
2 | 0.114548 |
5 | 0.099186 |
10 | 0.004363 |
Figure 2 gives a comparison between ADM and Picard solution of Ex. 4.2.
Example 4.3. Consider the following nonlinear FDE [35]
CFDαx=3t2−128125πt5+110(CFD1/2x)2,x(0)=0. | (4.10) |
Appling Eq (2.3) to Eq (4.10), and using initial condition,
y=3t2−128125πt5+110(CFI1/2y)2 | (4.11) |
Appling ADM to Eq (4.11), we find the solution algorithm become
y0(t)=3t2−128125πt5,yi(t)=110(Ai−1), i≥1 | (4.12) |
at which Ai are Adomian polynomial of the nonliner term (CFI1/2y)2.
Then appling Picard solution to Eq (4.11), we find the solution algorithm become
y0(t)=3t2−128125πt5,yi(t)=y0(t)+110(CFI1/2yi−1)2, i≥1. | (4.13) |
From Eq (4.12), the solution using ADM is given by y(t)=Limq→∞qi=0yi(t) while from Eq (4.13), the solution is y(t)=Limi→∞yi(t). Finally, the solution of the original problem Eq (4.11), is
x(t)=CFIy(t). |
One the same processor (q = 4), the time consumed using ADM is 2.09 seconds, while the time consumed using Picard is 44.725 seconds.
Table 2 showed the maximum absolute truncated error of of ADM solution (using Theorem 3.3) at different values of m (when t = 0:5; N = 4):
q | max. absolute error |
2 | 0.00222433 |
5 | 0.0000326908 |
10 | 2.88273*10−8 |
Figure 3 gives a comparison between ADM and Picard solution of Ex. 4.3 with α=1.
Example 4.4. Consider the following nonlinear FDE [35]
CFDαx=t2+12 CFDα1x+14 CFDα2x+16 CFDα3x+18x4,x(0)=0. | (4.14) |
Appling Eq (2.3) to Eq (4.10), and using initial condition,
y=t2+12(CFIα−α1y)+14(CFIα−α2y)+16(CFIα−α3y)+18(CFIαy)4, | (4.15) |
Appling ADM to Eq (4.15), we find the solution algorithm become
y0(t)=t2,yi(t)=12(CFIα−α1y)+14(CFIα−α2y)+16(CFIα−α3y)+18Ai−1, i≥1 | (4.16) |
where Ai are Adomian polynomial of the nonliner term (CFIαy)4.
Then appling Picard solution to Eq (4.15), we find the solution algorithm become
y0(t)=t2,yi(t)=t2+12(CFIα−α1yi−1)+14(CFIα−α2yi−1)+16(CFIα−α3yi−1)+18(CFIαyi−1)4 i≥1. | (4.17) |
From Eq (4.16), the solution using ADM is given by y(t)=Limq→∞qi=0yi(t) while from Eq (4.17), the solution using Picard technique is y(t)=Limi→∞yi(t). Finally, the solution of the original problem Eq (4.14), is
x(t)=CFIαy(t). |
One the same processor (q = 3), the time consumed using ADM is 0.437 seconds, while the time consumed using Picard is (16.816) seconds. Figure 4 shows a comparison between ADM and Picard solution of Ex. 4.4 atα=0.7,α1=0.1,α2=0.3,α3=0.5.
The Caputo-Fabrizo fractional deivative has a nonsingular kernel, and consequently, this definition is appropriate in solving nonlinear multidimensional FDE [37,38]. Since the selected numerical problems have an unkown exact solution, the formula (3.2) can be used to estimate the maximum absolute truncated error. By comparing the time taken on the same processor (i7-2670QM), it was found that the time consumed by ADM is much smaller compared with the Picard technique. Furthermore Picard gives a more accurate solution than ADM at the same interval with the same number of terms.
The authors declare there is no conflict of interest.
[1] | R. M. Anderson, R. M. May, O. U. P. (OUP), Infectious diseases of human: dynamics and control, 1992. |
[2] | O. Diekmann, J. Heesterbeek, Mathematical epidemiology of infectious diseases: Model building, analysis and interpretation, Wiley Series in Mathematical and Computational Biology, Chichester, Wiley. |
[3] |
A. S. Perelson, P. W. Nelson, Mathematical Analysis Of HIV-1 Dynamics In Vivo, Siam. Rev., 41 (1999), 3-44. doi: 10.1137/S0036144598335107
![]() |
[4] |
P. Song, Y. Lou, Y. Xiao, A spatial seirs reaction-diffusion model in heterogeneous environment, J. Differ. Equations, 267 (2019), 5084-5114. doi: 10.1016/j.jde.2019.05.022
![]() |
[5] | S. Wain-Hobson, Virus dynamics: Mathematical principles of immunology and virology, Nat. Med., 410 (2001), 412-413. |
[6] | L. J. Abu-Raddad, R. V. Barnabas, H. Janes, H. A. Weiss, J. G. Kublin, I. M. Longini, et al., Have the explosive HIV epidemics in sub-Saharan Africa been driven by higher community viral load?, AIDS, 27 (2013), 2494-2496. |
[7] |
D. Wilson, M. Law, A. E. Grulich, D. A. Cooper, J. M. Kaldor, Relation between HIV viral load and infectiousness: a model-based analysis, The Lancet, 372 (2008), 314-320. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(08)61115-0
![]() |
[8] |
T. C. Quinn, M. J. Wawer, N. Sewankambo, D. Serwadda, R. H. Gray, Viral load and heterosexual transmission of human immunodeficiency virus type 1, New. Engl. J. Med., 342 (2000), 921-929. doi: 10.1056/NEJM200003303421303
![]() |
[9] | L. M. Childs, F. E. Moustaid, Z. Gajewski, S. Kadelka, R. Nikinbeers, J. W. Smith, et al., Linked within-host and between-host models and data for infectious diseases: a systematic review, PeerJ, 7 (2019), e7057. |
[10] | N. Dorratoltaj, R. Nikinbeers, S. M. Ciupe, S. Eubank, K. Abbas, Multi-scale immunoepidemiological modeling of within-host and between-host HIV dynamics: systematic review of mathematical models, PeerJ, 5 (2017), e3877. |
[11] |
A. Gandolfi, A. Pugliese, C. Sinisgalli, Epidemic dynamics and host immune response: a nested approach, J. Math. Biol., 70 (2015), 399-435. doi: 10.1007/s00285-014-0769-8
![]() |
[12] | W. Garira, A primer on multiscale modelling of infectious disease systems, Infect. Dis. Model., 3 (2018), 176-191. |
[13] |
W. Garira, A complete categorization of multiscale models of infectious disease systems, J. Biol. Dyn., 11 (2017), 378-435. doi: 10.1080/17513758.2017.1367849
![]() |
[14] | M. A. Gilchrist, D. Coombs, Evolution of virulence: Interdependence, constraints, and selection using nested models, Theor. Popul. Biol., 69 (2006), 145-153. |
[15] |
M. Park, C. Loverdo, S. J. Schreiber, J. O. Lloydsmith, Multiple scales of selection influence the evolutionary emergence of novel pathogens, Philos. T. R. Soc. B., 368 (2013), 20120333. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2012.0333
![]() |
[16] |
M. Shen, Y. Xiao, L. Rong, Global stability of an infection-age structured HIV-1 model linking within-host and between-host dynamics, Math. Biosci., 263 (2015), 37-50. doi: 10.1016/j.mbs.2015.02.003
![]() |
[17] |
M. Shen, Y. Xiao, L. Rong, L. A. Meyers, Conflict and accord of optimal treatment strategies for HIV infection within and between hosts, Math. Biosci., 309 (2019), 107-117. doi: 10.1016/j.mbs.2019.01.007
![]() |
[18] |
M. Shen, Y. Xiao, L. Rong, G. Zhuang, Global dynamics and cost-effectiveness analysis of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis and structured treatment interruptions based on a multi-scale model, Appl. Math. Model., 75 (2019), 162-200. doi: 10.1016/j.apm.2019.05.024
![]() |
[19] | Z. Feng, X. Cen, Y. Zhao, J. Velasco-Hernandez, Coupled within-host and between-host dynamics and evolution of virulence, Math. Biosci., 270 (2015), 204-212. |
[20] | Z. Feng, J. Velasco-Hernandez, B. Tapia-Santos, A mathematical model for coupling within-host and between-host dynamics in an environmentally-driven infectious disease, Math. Biosci., 241 (2013), 49-55. |
[21] |
X. Wang, S. Tang, A multiscale model on hospital infections coupling macro and micro dynamics, Commun. Nonlinear. Sci., 50 (2017), 256-270. doi: 10.1016/j.cnsns.2017.03.009
![]() |
[22] |
X. Sun, Y. Xiao, Multiscale system for environmentally-driven infectious disease with threshold control strategy, Int. J. Bifurcat. Chaos, 28 (2018), 1850064. doi: 10.1142/S0218127418500645
![]() |
[23] |
Y. Xiao, C. Xiang, R. Cheke, S. Tang, Coupling the macroscale to the microscale in a spatiotemporal context to examine effects of spatial diffusion on disease transmission, B. Math. Biol., 82 (2020), 1-27. doi: 10.1007/s11538-019-00680-3
![]() |
[24] |
S. Bhattacharya, M. Martcheva, An immuno-eco-epidemiological model of competition, J. Biol. Dyn., 10 (2016), 314-341. doi: 10.1080/17513758.2016.1186291
![]() |
[25] |
T. Kostova, Persistence of viral infections on the population level explained by an immunoepidemiological model, Math. Biosci., 206 (2007), 309-319. doi: 10.1016/j.mbs.2005.08.003
![]() |
[26] |
E. C. Manda, F. Chirove, Modelling coupled within host and population dynamics of and HIV infection, J. Math. Biol., 76 (2018), 1123-1158. doi: 10.1007/s00285-017-1170-1
![]() |
[27] |
X. Cen, Z. Feng, Y. Zhao, Emerging disease dynamics in a model coupling within-host and between-host systems, J. Theor. Biol., 361 (2014), 141-151. doi: 10.1016/j.jtbi.2014.07.030
![]() |
[28] |
B. Boldin, O. Diekmann, Superinfections can induce evolutionarily stable coexistence of pathogens, J. Math. Biol., 56 (2008), 635-672. doi: 10.1007/s00285-007-0135-1
![]() |
[29] |
P. Dreessche, J. Watmough, Reproduction numbers and sub-threshold endemic equilibria for compartmental models of disease transmission, Math. Biosci., 180 (2002), 29-48. doi: 10.1016/S0025-5564(02)00108-6
![]() |
1. | Eman A. A. Ziada, Salwa El-Morsy, Osama Moaaz, Sameh S. Askar, Ahmad M. Alshamrani, Monica Botros, Solution of the SIR epidemic model of arbitrary orders containing Caputo-Fabrizio, Atangana-Baleanu and Caputo derivatives, 2024, 9, 2473-6988, 18324, 10.3934/math.2024894 | |
2. | H. Salah, M. Anis, C. Cesarano, S. S. Askar, A. M. Alshamrani, E. M. Elabbasy, Fourth-order differential equations with neutral delay: Investigation of monotonic and oscillatory features, 2024, 9, 2473-6988, 34224, 10.3934/math.20241630 | |
3. | Said R. Grace, Gokula N. Chhatria, S. Kaleeswari, Yousef Alnafisah, Osama Moaaz, Forced-Perturbed Fractional Differential Equations of Higher Order: Asymptotic Properties of Non-Oscillatory Solutions, 2024, 9, 2504-3110, 6, 10.3390/fractalfract9010006 | |
4. | A.E. Matouk, Monica Botros, Hidden chaotic attractors and self-excited chaotic attractors in a novel circuit system via Grünwald–Letnikov, Caputo-Fabrizio and Atangana-Baleanu fractional operators, 2025, 116, 11100168, 525, 10.1016/j.aej.2024.12.064 | |
5. | Zahra Barati, Maryam Keshavarzi, Samaneh Mosaferi, Anatomical and micromorphological study of Phalaris (Poaceae) species in Iran, 2025, 68, 1588-4082, 9, 10.14232/abs.2024.1.9-15 |
q | max. absolute error |
2 | 0.114548 |
5 | 0.099186 |
10 | 0.004363 |
q | max. absolute error |
2 | 0.00222433 |
5 | 0.0000326908 |
10 | 2.88273*10−8 |