Quantifying the risk of Zika virus spread in Asia during the 2015-16 epidemic in Latin America and the Caribbean: A modeling study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: No large-scale Zika epidemic has been observed to date in Southeast Asia following the 2015-16 Latin American and the Caribbean epidemic. One hypothesis is Southeast Asian populations' partial immunity to Zika. METHOD: We estimated the two conditions for a Zika outbreak emergence in Southeast Asia: (i) the risk of Zika introduction from Latin America and the Caribbean and, (ii) the risk of autochthonous transmission under varying assumptions on population immunity. We also validated the model used to estimate the risk of introduction by comparing the estimated number of Zika seeds introduced into the United States with case counts reported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). RESULTS: There was good agreement between our estimates and case counts reported by the CDC. We thus applied the model to Southeast Asia and estimated that, on average, 1-10 seeds were introduced into Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam. We also found increasing population immunity levels from 0 to 90% reduced probability of autochthonous transmission by 40% and increasing individual variation in transmission further reduced the outbreak probability. CONCLUSIONS: Population immunity, combined with heterogeneity in transmission, can explain why no large-scale outbreak was observed in Southeast Asia during the 2015-16 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".