MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2608979785 · doi:10.1098/rstb.2016.0117

Lyme disease ecology in a changing world: consensus, uncertainty and critical gaps for improving control

2017· review· en· W2608979785 on OpenAlexaff
A. Marm Kilpatrick, Andrew D. M. Dobson, Taal Levi, Daniel J. Salkeld, Andrea Swei, Howard S. Ginsberg, Anne M. Kjemtrup, Kerry A. Padgett, P. Jensen, Durland Fish, Nicholas H. Ogden, Maria A. Diuk‐Wasser

Bibliographic record

VenuePhilosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicVector-borne infectious diseases
Canadian institutionsPublic Health Agency of Canada
FundersU.S. Geological SurveyBay Area Lyme FoundationNational Institutes of HealthNational Science Foundation
KeywordsLyme diseaseEcologyGeographyBiologyVirology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lyme disease is the most common tick-borne disease in temperate regions of North America, Europe and Asia, and the number of reported cases has increased in many regions as landscapes have been altered. Although there has been extensive work on the ecology and epidemiology of this disease in both Europe and North America, substantial uncertainty exists about fundamental aspects that determine spatial and temporal variation in both disease risk and human incidence, which hamper effective and efficient prevention and control. Here we describe areas of consensus that can be built on, identify areas of uncertainty and outline research needed to fill these gaps to facilitate predictive models of disease risk and the development of novel disease control strategies. Key areas of uncertainty include: (i) the precise influence of deer abundance on tick abundance, (ii) how tick populations are regulated, (iii) assembly of host communities and tick-feeding patterns across different habitats, (iv) reservoir competence of host species, and (v) pathogenicity for humans of different genotypes of Borrelia burgdorferi . Filling these knowledge gaps will improve Lyme disease prevention and control and provide general insights into the drivers and dynamics of this emblematic multi-host–vector-borne zoonotic disease. This article is part of the themed issue ‘Conservation, biodiversity and infectious disease: scientific evidence and policy implications'.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.007
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0050.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.076
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations302
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhilosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B Biological SciencesSame topicVector-borne infectious diseasesFrench-language works237,207