MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

PARASITE TRANSMISSION MODES AND THE EVOLUTION OF VIRULENCE

2001· article· en· W2177622633 on OpenAlexaff
Troy Day

Bibliographic record

VenueEvolution · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicEvolution and Genetic Dynamics
Canadian institutionsToronto ZooUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyVirulenceParasite hostingTransmission (telecommunications)Host (biology)FecundityTransmission rateBasic reproduction numberVector (molecular biology)Genetic FitnessEvolutionary biologyZoologyEcologyBiological evolutionGeneticsDemographyPopulationComputer scienceTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A mathematical model is presented that explores the relationship between transmission patterns and the evolution of virulence for horizontally transmitted parasites when only a single parasite strain can infect each host. The model is constructed by decomposing parasite transmission into two processes, the rate of contact between hosts and the probability of transmission per contact. These transmission rate components, as well as the total parasite mortality rate, are allowed to vary over the course of an infection. A general evolutionarily stable condition is presented that partitions the effects of virulence on parasite fitness into three components: fecundity benefits, mortality costs, and morbidity costs. This extension of previous theory allows us to explore the evolutionary consequences of a variety of transmission patterns. I then focus attention on a special case in which the parasite density remains approximately constant during an infection, and I demonstrate two important ways in which transmission modes can affect virulence evolution: by imposing different morbidity costs on the parasite and by altering the scheduling of parasite reproduction during an infection. Both are illustrated with examples, including one that examines the hypothesis that vector-borne parasites should be more virulent than non-vector-borne parasites (Ewald 1994). The validity of this hypothesis depends upon the way in which these two effects interact, and it need not hold in general.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.004
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.221 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations185
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvolutionSame topicEvolution and Genetic DynamicsFrench-language works237,207