The application of epidemiology in aquatic animal health -opportunities and challenges
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over recent years the growth in aquaculture, accompanied by the emergence of new and transboundary diseases, has stimulated epidemiological studies of aquatic animal diseases. Great potential exists for both observational and theoretical approaches to investigate the processes driving emergence but, to date, compared to terrestrial systems, relatively few studies exist in aquatic animals. Research using risk methods has assessed routes of introduction of aquatic animal pathogens to facilitate safe trade (e.g. import risk analyses) and support biosecurity. Epidemiological studies of risk factors for disease in aquaculture (most notably Atlantic salmon farming) have effectively supported control measures. Methods developed for terrestrial livestock diseases (e.g. risk-based surveillance) could improve the capacity of aquatic animal surveillance systems to detect disease incursions and emergence. The study of disease in wild populations presents many challenges and the judicious use of theoretical models offers some solutions. Models, parameterised from observational studies of host pathogen interactions, have been used to extrapolate estimates of impacts on the individual to the population level. These have proved effective in estimating the likely impact of parasite infections on wild salmonid populations in Switzerland and Canada (where the importance of farmed salmon as a reservoir of infection was investigated). A lack of data is often the key constraint in the application of new approaches to surveillance and modelling. The need for epidemiological approaches to protect aquatic animal health will inevitably increase in the face of the combined challenges of climate change, increasing anthropogenic pressures, limited water sources and the growth in aquaculture.
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 | 0.033 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".