Transmission assumptions generate conflicting predictions in host–vector disease models: a case study in West Nile virus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This review synthesizes the conflicting outbreak predictions generated by different biological assumptions in host-vector disease models. It is motivated by the North American outbreak of West Nile virus, an emerging infectious disease that has prompted at least five dynamical modelling studies. Mathematical models have long proven successful in investigating the dynamics and control of infectious disease systems. The underlying assumptions in these epidemiological models determine their mathematical structure, and therefore influence their predictions. A crucial assumption is the host-vector interaction encapsulated in the disease-transmission term, and a key prediction is the basic reproduction number, R(0). We connect these two model elements by demonstrating how the choice of transmission term qualitatively and quantitatively alters R(0) and therefore alters predicted disease dynamics and control implications. Whereas some transmission terms predict that reducing the host population will reduce disease outbreaks, others predict that this will exacerbate infection risk. These conflicting predictions are reconciled by understanding that different transmission terms apply biologically only at certain population densities, outside which they can generate erroneous predictions. For West Nile virus, R(0) estimates for six common North American bird species indicate that all would be effective outbreak hosts.
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 | 0.006 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".