Mechanistic movement models reveal ecological drivers of tick-borne pathogen spread
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Identifying ecological drivers of tick-borne pathogen spread has great value for tick-borne disease management. However, theoretical investigations into the consequences of host movement behaviour on pathogen spread dynamics in heterogeneous landscapes remain limited because spatially explicit epidemiological models that incorporate more realistic mechanisms governing host movement are rare. We built a mechanistic movement model to investigate how the interplay between multiple ecological drivers affects the risk of tick-borne pathogen spread across heterogeneous landscapes. We used the model to generate simulations of tick dispersal by migratory birds and terrestrial hosts across theoretical landscapes varying in resource aggregation, and we performed a sensitivity analysis to explore the impacts of different parameters on the infected tick spread rate, tick infection prevalence and infected tick density. Our findings highlight the importance of host movement and tick population dynamics in explaining the infected tick spread rate into new regions. Tick infection prevalence and infected tick density were driven by predictors related to the infection process and tick population dynamics, respectively. Our results suggest that control strategies aiming to reduce tick burden on tick reproduction hosts and encounter rate between immature ticks and pathogen amplification hosts will be most effective at reducing tick-borne disease risk.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".