Phylogeny matters: revisiting ‘a comparison of bats and rodents as reservoirs of zoonotic viruses’
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Diseases emerging from wildlife have been the source of many major human outbreaks. Predicting key sources of these outbreaks requires an understanding of the factors that explain pathogen diversity in reservoir species. Comparative methods are powerful tools for understanding variation in pathogen diversity and rely on correcting for phylogenetic relatedness among reservoir species. We reanalysed a previously published dataset, examining the relative effects of species' traits on patterns of viral diversity in bats and rodents. We expanded on prior work by using more highly resolved phylogenies for bats and rodents and incorporating a phylogenetically controlled principal components analysis. For rodents, sympatry and torpor use were important predictors of viral richness and, as previously reported, phylogeny had minimal impact in models. For bats, in contrast to prior work, we find that phylogeny does have an effect in models. Patterns of viral diversity in bats were related to geographical distribution (i.e. latitude and range size) and life history (i.e. lifespan, body size and birthing frequency). However, the effects of these predictors were marginal relative to citation count, emphasizing that the ability to accurately assess reservoir status largely depends on sampling effort and highlighting the need for additional data in future comparative studies.
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 | 0.015 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".