Comparing the effects of non-homogenous mixing patterns on epidemiological outcomes in equine populations: A mathematical modelling study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Disease transmission models often assume homogenous mixing. This assumption, however, has the potential to misrepresent the disease dynamics for populations in which contact patterns are non-random. A disease transmission model with an SEIR structure was used to compare the effect of weighted and unweighted empirical equine contact networks to weighted and unweighted theoretical networks generated using random mixing. Equine influenza was used as a case study. Incidence curves generated with the unweighted empirical networks were similar in epidemic duration (5-8 days) and peak incidence (30.8-46.4%). In contrast, the weighted empirical networks resulted in a more pronounced difference between the networks in terms of the epidemic duration (8-15 days) and the peak incidence (5-25%). The incidence curves for the empirical networks were bimodal, while the incidence curves for the theoretical networks were unimodal. The incorporation of vaccination and isolation in the model caused a decrease in the cumulative incidence for each network, however, this effect was only seen at high levels of vaccination and isolation for the complete network. This study highlights the importance of using empirical networks to describe contact patterns within populations that are unlikely to exhibit random mixing such as equine populations.
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 | 0.005 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".