Assessing the Origin of and Potential for International Spread of Chikungunya Virus from the Caribbean
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: For the first time, an outbreak of chikungunya has been reported in the Americas. Locally acquired infections have been confirmed in fourteen Caribbean countries and dependent territories, Guyana and French Guiana, in which a large number of North American travelers vacation. Should some travelers become infected with chikungunya virus, they could potentially introduce it into the United States, where there are competent Aedes mosquito vectors, with the possibility of local transmission. METHODS: We analyzed historical data on airline travelers departing areas of the Caribbean and South America, where locally acquired cases of chikungunya have been confirmed as of May 12th, 2014. The final destinations of travelers departing these areas between May and July 2012 were determined and overlaid on maps of the reported distribution of Aedes aeygpti and albopictus mosquitoes in the United States, to identify potential areas at risk of autochthonous transmission. RESULTS: The United States alone accounted for 52.1% of the final destinations of all international travelers departing chikungunya indigenous areas of the Caribbean between May and July 2012. Cities in the United States with the highest volume of air travelers were New York City, Miami and San Juan (Puerto Rico). Miami and San Juan were high travel-volume cities where Aedes aeygpti or albopictus are reported and where climatic conditions could be suitable for autochthonous transmission. CONCLUSION: The rapidly evolving outbreak of chikungunya in the Caribbean poses a growing risk to countries and areas linked by air travel, including the United States where competent Aedes mosquitoes exist. The risk of chikungunya importation into the United States may be elevated following key travel periods in the spring, when large numbers of North American travelers typically vacation in the Caribbean.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".