A Neural Network‐Based Method for Risk Factor Analysis of West Nile Virus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is a lack of knowledge about which risk factors are more important in West Nile virus (WNV) transmission and risk magnitude. A better understanding of the risk factors is of great help in developing effective new technologies and appropriate prevention strategies for WNV infection. A contribution analysis of all risk factors in WNV infection would identify those major risk factors. Based on the identified major risk factors, measures to control WNV proliferation could be directed toward those significant risk factors, thus improving the effectiveness and efficiency in developing WNV control and prevention strategies. Neural networks have many generally accepted advantages over conventional analytical techniques, for instance, ability to automatically learn the relationship between the inputs and outputs from training data, powerful generalization ability, and capability of handling nonlinear interactions. In this article, a neural network model was developed for analysis of risk factors in WNV infection. To reveal the relative contribution of the input variables, the neural network was trained using an algorithm called structural learning with forgetting. During the learning, weak neural connections are forced to fade away while a skeletal network with strong connections emerges. The significant risk factors can be identified by analyzing this skeletal network. The proposed approach is tested with the dead bird surveillance data in Ontario, Canada. The results demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed approach.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".