Mechanistic movement models to understand epidemic spread
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An overlooked aspect of disease ecology is considering how and why animals come into contact with one and other resulting in disease transmission. Mathematical models of disease spread frequently assume mass-action transmission, justified by stating that susceptible and infectious hosts mix readily, and foregoing any detailed description of host movement. Numerous recent studies have recorded, analysed and modelled animal movement. These movement models describe how animals move with respect to resources, conspecifics and previous movement directions and have been used to understand the conditions for the occurrence and the spread of infectious diseases when hosts perform a type of movement. Here, we summarize the effect of the different types of movement on the threshold conditions for disease spread. We identify gaps in the literature and suggest several promising directions for future research. The mechanistic inclusion of movement in epidemic models may be beneficial for the following two reasons. Firstly, the estimation of the transmission coefficient in an epidemic model is possible because animal movement data can be used to estimate the rate of contacts between conspecifics. Secondly, unsuccessful transmission events, where a susceptible host contacts an infectious host but does not become infected can be quantified. Following an outbreak, this enables disease ecologists to identify 'near misses' and to explore possible alternative epidemic outcomes given shifts in ecological or immunological parameters.This article is part of the themed issue 'Opening the black box: re-examining the ecology and evolution of parasite transmission'.
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) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".