Comparison of covariate adjustment methods using space-time scan statistics for food animal syndromic surveillance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Abattoir condemnation data show promise as a rich source of data for syndromic surveillance of both animal and zoonotic diseases. However, inherent characteristics of abattoir condemnation data can bias results from space-time cluster detection methods for disease surveillance, and may need to be accounted for using various adjustment methods. The objective of this study was to compare the space-time scan statistics with different abilities to control for covariates and to assess their suitability for food animal syndromic surveillance. Four space-time scan statistic models were used including: animal class adjusted Poisson, space-time permutation, multi-level model adjusted Poisson, and a weighted normal scan statistic using model residuals. The scan statistics were applied to monthly bovine pneumonic lung and "parasitic liver" condemnation data from Ontario provincial abattoirs from 2001-2007. RESULTS: The number and space-time characteristics of identified clusters often varied between space-time scan tests for both "parasitic liver" and pneumonic lung condemnation data. While there were some similarities between isolated clusters in space, time and/or space-time, overall the results from space-time scan statistics differed substantially depending on the covariate adjustment approach used. CONCLUSIONS: Variability in results among methods suggests that caution should be used in selecting space-time scan methods for abattoir surveillance. Furthermore, validation of different approaches with simulated or real outbreaks is required before conclusive decisions can be made concerning the best approach for conducting surveillance with these data.
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 | 0.049 | 0.165 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".