Comments Regarding the Binary Power Law for Heterogeneity of Disease Incidence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The binary power law (BPL) has been successfully used to characterize heterogeneity (overdispersion or small-scale aggregation) of disease incidence for many plant pathosystems. With the BPL, the log of the observed variance is a linear function of the log of the theoretical variance for a binomial distribution over the range of incidence values, and the estimated scale (?) and slope (b) parameters provide information on the characteristics of aggregation. When b = 1, the interpretation is that the degree of aggregation remains constant over the range of incidence values observed; otherwise, aggregation is variable. In two articles published in this journal in 2009, Gosme and Lucas used their stochastic simulation model, Cascade, to show a multiphasic (split-line) relationship of the variances, with straight-line (linear) relationships on a log-log scale within each phase. In particular, they showed a strong break point in the lines at very low incidence, with b considerably >1 in the first line segment (corresponding to a range of incidence values usually not observed in the field), and b being ?1 in the next segment (corresponding to the range of incidence values usually observed). We evaluated their findings by utilizing a general spatially explicit stochastic simulator developed by Xu and Ridout in 1998, with a wide range of median dispersal distances for the contact distribution and number of plants in the sampling units (quadrats), and through an assessment of published BPL results. The simulation results showed that the split-line phenomenon can occur, with a break point at incidence values of ?0.01; however, the split is most obvious for short median dispersal distances and large quadrat sizes. However, values of b in the second phase were almost always >1, and only approached 1 with extremely short median dispersal distances and small quadrat sizes. An appraisal of published results showed no evidence of multiple phases (although the minimum incidence may generally be too high to observe the break), and estimates of b were almost always >1. Thus, it appears that the results from the Cascade simulation model represent a special epidemiological case, corresponding primarily to a roughly nearest-neighbor population-dynamic process. Implications of a multiphasic BPL property may be important and are discussed.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".