Spatiotemporal Variation and Hotspot Detection of the Avian Influenza A(H7N9) Virus in China, 2013–2017
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims to describe the spatial and temporal characteristics of human infections with H7N9 virus in China using data from 19 February 2013 to 30 September 2017 extracted from Centre for Health Protection of the Department of Health (CHP) and electronic databases managed by China's Center for Disease Control (CDC) and provincial CDCs synthetically using the Geographic Information System (GIS) software ArcMap™ 10.2 and SaTScan. Based on the multiple analyses of the A(H7N9) epidemics, there was a strong seasonal pattern in A(H7N9) virus infection, with high activity in the first quarter of the year, especially in January, February, and April, and a gradual dying out in the third quarter. Spatial distribution analysis indicated that Eastern China contained the most severely affected areas, such as Zhejiang Province, and the distribution shifted from coastline areas to more inland areas over time. In addition, the cases exhibited local spatial aggregation, with high-risk areas most found in the southeast coastal regions of China. Shanghai, Jiangsu, Zhejiang, and Guangdong were the high-risk epidemic areas, which should arouse the attention of local governments. A strong cluster from 9 April 2017 to 24 June 2017 was also identified in Northern China, and there were many secondary clusters in Eastern and Southern China, especially in Zhejiang, Fujian, Jiangsu, and Guangdong Provinces. Our results suggested that the spatial-temporal clustering of H7N9 in China is fundamentally different, and is expected to contribute to accumulating knowledge on the changing temporal patterns and spatial dissemination during the fifth epidemic and provide data to enable adequate preparation against the next epidemic.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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".