Spatio-temporal modelling of the first Chikungunya epidemic in an intra-urban setting: The role of socioeconomic status, environment and temperature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Three key elements are the drivers of Aedes-borne disease: mosquito infestation, virus circulating, and susceptible human population. However, information on these aspects is not easily available in low- and middle-income countries. We analysed data on factors that influence one or more of those elements to study the first chikungunya epidemic in Rio de Janeiro city in 2016. Using spatio-temporal models, under the Bayesian framework, we estimated the association of those factors with chikungunya reported cases by neighbourhood and week. To estimate the minimum temperature effect in a non-linear fashion, we used a transfer function considering an instantaneous effect and propagation of a proportion of such effect to future times. The sociodevelopment index and the proportion of green areas (areas with agriculture, swamps and shoals, tree and shrub cover, and woody-grass cover) were included in the model with time-varying coefficients, allowing us to explore how their associations with the number of cases change throughout the epidemic. There were 13627 chikungunya cases in the study period. The sociodevelopment index presented the strongest association, inversely related to the risk of cases. Such association was more pronounced in the first weeks, indicating that socioeconomically vulnerable neighbourhoods were affected first and hardest by the epidemic. The proportion of green areas effect was null for most weeks. The temperature was directly associated with the risk of chikungunya for most neighbourhoods, with different decaying patterns. The temperature effect persisted longer where the epidemic was concentrated. In such locations, interventions should be designed to be continuous and to work in the long term. We observed that the role of the covariates changes over time. Therefore, time-varying coefficients should be widely incorporated when modelling Aedes-borne diseases. Our model contributed to the understanding of the spatio-temporal dynamics of an urban Aedes-borne disease introduction in a tropical metropolitan city.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".