Potentials of constrained sliding mode control as an intervention guide to manage COVID19 spread
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
No abstract available
Article activity feed
-
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.09.21.20166934: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Table 2: Resources
No key resources detected.
Results from OddPub: Thank you for sharing your data.
Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:As can be seen, when the infectious level complies with the imposed limitation (both absolute value and approach speed), the restriction level begins to increase to avoid exceeding the imposed limit (horizontal dashed line in the infectious subplot). When this condition ceases to be fulfilled (due to the evolution of the disease) the …
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.09.21.20166934: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Table 2: Resources
No key resources detected.
Results from OddPub: Thank you for sharing your data.
Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:As can be seen, when the infectious level complies with the imposed limitation (both absolute value and approach speed), the restriction level begins to increase to avoid exceeding the imposed limit (horizontal dashed line in the infectious subplot). When this condition ceases to be fulfilled (due to the evolution of the disease) the restriction level begins to decrease until the level without restriction is recovered again. The main difference between the proposal behavior and the constant restriction levels is the non-saturation of the health system, which is only achieved for a constant restriction level above 50 %. Not exceeding the health system capacity brings with it the most important result of not increasing the mortality rate. As can be appreciated from Fig. 3, the evolution of the closed-loop system for the case with τ =15 days has a similar duration to the case of 40% constant restriction (dashed orange lines). The main difference is the “time distribution” of infectious agents that avoids surpassing the health system capacity. This is achieved by keeping the system unrestricted for a longer time period, but requiring a deeper restriction peak. To make a comparison, the 40 % constant restriction case has an approximate duration of 400 days, while for the closed-loop system there exist restrictions during only 161 days. 101 of these days correspond to a restriction level lower than 40 %, whilst the remaining days the restriction is harder reaching a peak of 58 % fo...
Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.
Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.
Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.
Results from rtransparent:- Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
- Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
- No protocol registration statement was detected.
-
