Helminth Dynamics: Mean Number of Worms, Reproductive Rates
Arni S.R. Srinivasa Rao, Roy M. Anderson

TL;DR
This paper develops formulas to calculate the average number of worms in a newly infected helminth population before secondary infections occur, highlighting the measurable growth functions involved.
Contribution
It introduces new formulas for mean worm counts and proves the emergence of two types of growth functions in helminth population dynamics.
Findings
Derived formulas for mean worm numbers in initial infection stages
Proved the measurability of growth functions in the process
Identified two distinct growth functions in helminth dynamics
Abstract
We derive formulas to compute mean number of worms in a newly Helminth infected population before secondary infections are started (population is closed). We have proved the two types of growth functions arise in this process as measurable functions.
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Helminth Dynamics: Mean Number of Worms
Abstract.
Understanding the mean number of worms and burden of soil transmitted helminth infections are considered as important parameters in formulating treatment strategies to eliminate worms among children who are effected by helminth infections** [3]**. We derive mean number of worms in a newly helminth infected population before secondary infections are started (population is closed). Further we bring analytical solutions. We also theoretically demonstrate computing net reproductive rates within and outside a human host.
Key words and phrases:
Key words: worm density, measurable functions, disease modeling, chemotherapy, treatment** MSC:** 92D30.
Full Title: Helminth Dynamics: Mean Number of Worms, Reproductive
Rates
(Appeared in the Handbook of Statistics, Volume 36 Elsevier/North-Holland, Amsterdam, 2017, Disease Modelling and Public Health. Part A, 397–404. AMS: MR3838253)
Arni S.R. Srinivasa Rao111Corresponding author
Medical College of Georgia and College of Science and Mathematics,
Augusta University, 1120 15th Street, Augusta, GA 30912, USA
Email: [email protected]
Roy M. Anderson, FRS FMedSci
London Centre for Neglected Tropical Diseases,
Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology,
School of Public Health, Imperial College London,
Faculty of Medicine, Norfolk Place London W2 1PG, UK
Email: [email protected]
Contents
1. Mean number of worms
Infection of helminthiasis or simply helminth can cause severe damage to health of children and their childhood behaviour, for example poor attendance in schools, etc [2]. A general description of infectious disease epidemiology of helminths for example for hookworms, and density-dependent fecundity and mortality models are described in [1]. Mean worm burden is one of the key epidemiological parameter in treatment formulations among children suffering with helminth infections** [3, 5, 4, 6]**. Moreover, mean worm burden is often considered as an important parameters in treatment and control of parasites in wild life [7, 8, 9]. In this paper, we treat worm burden as a function of worm reproductive rates and mean number of worms. For computation of mean number of worms within a host there are no directly available mathematical functions, and we try to theoretically understand the mean number and reproduction of worms within a host and present a theoretical analysis. In this section we derive formulae for the mean number of worms at the host level and at the population level. We obtain mean number of worms in the host population by treating population aging over the period, i.e. treating both time and age as dynamic. We assume no chemotherapy scenario at first and then introduce chemotherapy for studying disease dynamics. Populations means are derived from the individual host worm densities.
1.1. Cross sectional mean
Let be the mean number of worms present in the host population at time We compute, as below:
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
Where is the number of worms in a host who is of age at time in the sub-population ( is differential number of hosts between and at time ); is net growth of worms in sub-population of age at time ; are weights for age x at time ; is size of the human population sub-types, is age of humans until they are at risk of keeping helminth worms. is total number of hosts and is net worms present in sub-population at time . When we divide age range into smaller age intervals at lengths, , the mean number of worms in the equation (1.1) is written as follows:
[TABLE]
We define H_{i}(x,t)=\begin{cases}\begin{array}[]{cc}P_{i}(t-x)\pi(0,x)&\mbox{for }x<t\\ H_{i}(x-t,0)\pi(x-t,x)&\mbox{for }x\geq t\end{array}\end{cases}
here is births to hosts in the age , is probability that a newly born individual will survive up to age is probability that a individual of age will survive up to age By this definition, equation 1.2 will become
[TABLE]
We have obtained equation LABEL:eq:3 by assuming
[TABLE]
1.2. Cohort mean
Suppose we are following helminth infected hosts at time in sub-population, Denote by for net number of worms produced by sub-population, which is expressed by the integral, . Then the net number of worms produced during to , to ,...,$$t+h_{N} to are
,
,
Each double integral indicates net worms observed during a time interval indicated. The last double integral is where maximum possible net worms produced as in a logistic growth model with a variable and with carrying capacity , then the growth rate, of worms for the entire period for sub-population is
[TABLE]
Under the Lyapunov stability set-up, we explain carrying capacity as, for each time interval [math] to for , we define
[TABLE]
as cumulative number of net worms present in the sub-population during [math] to for some and . For some positive integer , we will have condition,
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
whenever and for every For the population weights , the mean number of worms present in the population is
[TABLE]
1.3. Theorems on worm growth potential in hosts
Theorem 1**.**
* is a measurable function, where is defined as,*
[TABLE]
for and
Proof.
Observe that maps each interval from the set
[TABLE]
to a function in the set
[TABLE]
Note that for some arbitrary ,
[TABLE]
Hence, is continuous and is a measurable. ∎
Remark 2*.*
for the description of in section 1.2.
Remark 3*.*
Suppose be the worms observed during time intervals for , then a class by the below notation
[TABLE]
is algebra.
Theorem 4**.**
[TABLE]
Proof.
By using Lebesgue monotonic convergence theorem, we can rove this result because, is monotonic function and measurable. ∎
2. Net Production Rates within and outside human host
We define net productive rates for helminth in this section. We assume that there are two sets of counting we do here, one is growth in the number of helminth population within human host and second is contribution of this human host to outside environment in the life time. We also assume that initial age distribution of helminths in human host is known. Suppose, be the population of helminth within a human host at time , be the initial population, is carrying capacity, and is growth rate, then under the logistic growth rate, we can express, as
[TABLE]
solving for growth rate, we get,
[TABLE]
Suppose, is initial helminth population at age within an host is known, then using , the survival probability that a group of worms at age will survive until age , we can obtain age distribution of worms at age and at time by,
[TABLE]
Note that, . Let is the time at point of inflection of logistic growth or we assume at , we will have We obtain and for some using growth rate in equation 2.1. Using these two population age structures at times and , we obtain effective worm population, in the life time of human host (where ). We define net rate of production, within a human host as,
[TABLE]
In the equation 2.3, denotes number of eggs produced by worms of age at In case of direct availability of rate of egg bearing at age by a female worm, say, then we can replace it for the ratio in the equation 2.3, and modify it as
[TABLE]
3. Impact of Chemotherapy
We establish few results when chemotherapy is introduced into the host population suffering with helminth and capture the dynamics. Suppose the chemotherapy is introduced at and be the net production rate of worms in the host population in age at time (due to chemotherapy it is assumed that the net number of worms produced per host is negative because there are less number of worms produced than they are removed), then the worm numbers in the sub-population during i.e. starts reducing until they eliminated. The exponential growth rate, until the time can be computed as,
[TABLE]
It is not necessary to introduce chemotherapy at time stability time point i.e at and chemotherapy could be introduced at time for after the initial phase of detection of worms during By taking all such populations and population weights , we obtain below equation, which we call equation for the nested growth of the worm population.
[TABLE]
Theorem 5**.**
* is a measurable function, where is defined as,*
[TABLE]
for and
Proof.
We can prove this theorem with similar arguments as in the proof of theorem 1. ∎
4. Discussion
We have derived formulae which can be used to compute the worm densities within a host and within the affected community. We have proved theoretical results of the functional forms derived for the net reproduction rates. Theoretical results derived indicates that the carrying capacities of worms within a host are measurable functions, which will help to understand bounds of the worm densities.
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1[1] R.M. Anderson and R. M. May (1991). Infectious Diseases of Humans: Dynamics and Control, Oxford University Press
- 2[2] R.M. Anderson, J.E. Truscott, R. L. Pullan, S.J. Brooker, T.D. Hollingsworth (2013). How Effective Is School-Based Deworming for the Community-Wide Control of Soil-Transmitted Helminths? PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases, 7, 2, e 2027. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0002027
- 3[3] Anderson RM, Turner HC, Truscott JE, Hollingsworth TD, Brooker SJ (2015) Should the Goal for the Treatment of Soil Transmitted Helminth (STH) Infections Be Changed from Morbidity Control in Children to Community-Wide Transmission Elimination? P Lo S Negl Trop Dis 9(8): e 0003897. doi:10.1371/journal.pntd.0003897
- 4[4] Turner HC, Truscott JE, Hollingsworth TD, Bettis AA, Brooker SJ, Anderson RM (2015). Cost and cost-effectiveness of soil-transmitted helminth treatment programmes: systematic review and research needs. Parasit Vectors. 2015 Jul 3;8:355. doi: 10.1186/s 13071-015-0885-3.
- 5[5] Truscott J, Hollingsworth TD, Anderson R (2014) Modeling the Interruption of the Transmission of Soil-Transmitted Helminths by Repeated Mass Chemotherapy of School-Age Children. P Lo S Negl Trop Dis 8(12): e 3323. doi:10.1371/journal.pntd.0003323
- 6[6] Anderson R, Truscott J, Hollingsworth TD (2014). The coverage and frequency of mass drug administration required to eliminate persistent transmission of soil-transmitted helminths. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci . 369(1645):20130435.
- 7[7] AB Pedersen, A Fenton (2015). The role of antiparasite treatment experiments in assessing the impact of parasites on wildlife. Trends in parasitology , 31,5: 200–211
- 8[8] Domke AV 1, Chartier C, Gjerde B, Leine N, Vatn S, Stuen S (2013). Prevalence of gastrointestinal helminths, lungworms and liver fluke in sheep and goats in Norway. Vet Parasitol. 2013 May 1;194(1):40-8
