Defining County-Level Terrestrial Rabies Freedom Using the US National Rabies Surveillance System: Surveillance Data Analysis
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Rabies is a deadly zoonotic disease with nearly 100% fatality rate. In the United States, rabies virus persists in wildlife reservoirs, with occasional spillover into humans and domestic animals. The distribution of reservoir hosts in US counties plays an important role in public health decision-making, including the recommendation of lifesaving postexposure prophylaxis upon suspected rabies exposures. Furthermore, in surveillance data, it is difficult to discern whether counties have no cases reported because rabies was not present or because counties have an unreported rabies presence. These epizootics are monitored by the National Rabies Surveillance System (NRSS), to which approximately 130 state public health, agriculture, and academic laboratories report animal rabies testing statistics. Historically, the NRSS classifies US counties as free from terrestrial rabies if, over the previous 5 years, they and any adjacent counties did not report any rabies cases and they tested ≥15 reservoir animals or 30 domestic animals. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to describe and evaluate the historical NRSS rabies-free county definition, review possibilities for improving this definition, and develop a model to achieve more precise estimates of the probability of terrestrial rabies freedom and the number of reported county-level terrestrial rabies cases. METHODS: Data submitted to the NRSS by state and territorial public health departments and the US Department of Agriculture Wildlife Services were analyzed to evaluate the historical rabies-free definition. A zero-inflated negative binomial model created county-level predictions of the probability of rabies freedom and the expected number of rabies cases reported. Data analyzed were from all animals submitted for laboratory diagnosis of rabies in the United States from 1995 to 2020 in skunk and raccoon reservoir territories, excluding bats and bat variants. RESULTS: We analyzed data from 14,642 and 30,120 county-years in the raccoon and skunk reservoir territories, respectively. Only 0.85% (9/1065) raccoon county-years and 0.79% (27/3411) skunk county-years that met the historical rabies-free criteria reported a case in the following year (99.2% negative predictive value for each), of which 2 were attributed to unreported bat variants. County-level model predictions displayed excellent discrimination for detecting zero cases and good estimates of reported cases in the following year. Counties classified as rabies free rarely (36/4476, 0.8%) detected cases in the following year. CONCLUSIONS: This study concludes that the historical rabies freedom definition is a reasonable approach for identifying counties that are truly free from terrestrial raccoon and skunk rabies virus transmission. Gradations of risk can be measured using the rabies prediction model presented in this study. However, even counties with a high probability of rabies freedom should maintain rabies testing capacity, as there are numerous examples of translocations of rabies-infected animals that can cause major changes in the epidemiology of rabies.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,013 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».