Urban-adapted mammal species have more known pathogens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The world is rapidly urbanising, inviting mounting concern that urban environments will experience increased zoonotic disease risk. Urban animals could have more frequent contact with humans, and therefore may transmit more zoonotic parasites; however, these animals have a specific set of underlying traits that may determine their parasite burdens while predisposing them to urban living, and they may be subject to more intense research effort, both of which could complicate our ability to reliably identify the role of urbanisation in driving zoonotic risk. Here, we test whether urban mammal species host more known zoonotic parasites, investigating the potential underlying drivers while accounting for a correlated suite of phenotypic, taxonomic, and geographic predictors. We found that urban-adapted mammals have more documented parasites, and more zoonotic parasites specifically: despite comprising only 157 of the 2792 investigated species (6%), urban mammals provided 39% of known host-parasite combinations and showed consistently higher viral discovery rates throughout the last century. However, contrary to predictions, much of the observed effect was attributable to research effort rather than to urban adaptation status itself, and urban-adapted species in fact hosted fewer zoonoses than expected given their total observed parasite richness. We conclude that extended historical contact with humans has had a limited impact on the number of observed zoonotic parasites in urban-adapted mammals; instead, their greater observed zoonotic richness likely reflects sampling bias arising from proximity to humans, which supports a near-universal underlying pattern of conflation between zoonotic risk, research effort, and synanthropy. These findings underscore the need to resolve the ecological mechanisms underlying links between anthropogenic change, sampling bias, and observed wildlife disease dynamics.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".