MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2004359489 · doi:10.1371/journal.pntd.0002372

Designing Programs for Eliminating Canine Rabies from Islands: Bali, Indonesia as a Case Study

2013· article· en· W2004359489 on OpenAlexaff
Sunny E. Townsend, I. P. Sumantra, Pudjiatmoko, Gusti Ngurah Bagus, Eric Brum, Sarah Cleaveland, Sally Crafter, Ayu Putu Madri Dewi, D.M.N. Dharma, Jonathan Dushoff, Janice Girardi, I Ketut Gunata, Elly Hiby, Corlevin Kalalo, Darryn L. Knobel, I Wayan Mardiana, Anak Agung Gde Putra, Luuk Schoonman, Helen Scott–Orr, Mike Shand, I Wayan Sukanadi, Pebi Purwo Suseno, Daniel T. Haydon, Katie Hampson

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicRabies epidemiology and control
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersFogarty International CenterU.S. Department of Homeland SecurityMedical Research CouncilNational Institutes of HealthScience and Technology DirectorateWellcome Trust
KeywordsRabiesVaccinationMass vaccinationPopulationEnvironmental healthGeographyVeterinary medicineVirologySocioeconomicsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Canine rabies is one of the most important and feared zoonotic diseases in the world. In some regions rabies elimination is being successfully coordinated, whereas in others rabies is endemic and continues to spread to uninfected areas. As epidemics emerge, both accepted and contentious control methods are used, as questions remain over the most effective strategy to eliminate rabies. The Indonesian island of Bali was rabies-free until 2008 when an epidemic in domestic dogs began, resulting in the deaths of over 100 people. Here we analyze data from the epidemic and compare the effectiveness of control methods at eliminating rabies. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Using data from Bali, we estimated the basic reproductive number, R(0), of rabies in dogs, to be ~1 · 2, almost identical to that obtained in ten-fold less dense dog populations and suggesting rabies will not be effectively controlled by reducing dog density. We then developed a model to compare options for mass dog vaccination. Comprehensive high coverage was the single most important factor for achieving elimination, with omission of even small areas (<0.5% of the dog population) jeopardizing success. Parameterizing the model with data from the 2010 and 2011 vaccination campaigns, we show that a comprehensive high coverage campaign in 2012 would likely result in elimination, saving ~550 human lives and ~$15 million in prophylaxis costs over the next ten years. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: The elimination of rabies from Bali will not be achieved through achievable reductions in dog density. To ensure elimination, concerted high coverage, repeated, mass dog vaccination campaigns are necessary and the cooperation of all regions of the island is critical. Momentum is building towards development of a strategy for the global elimination of canine rabies, and this study offers valuable new insights about the dynamics and control of this disease, with immediate practical relevance.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score0.100

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.235 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations177
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS neglected tropical diseasesSame topicRabies epidemiology and controlFrench-language works237,207