Unravelling Transmission in Epidemiological Models and its Role in the Disease-Diversity Relationship
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the decrease of biodiversity worldwide coinciding with an increase in disease outbreaks, investigating this link is more important then ever before. This review outlines the different modelling methods commonly used for pathogen transmission in animal host systems. There are a multitude of ways a pathogen can invade and spread through a host population. The assumptions of the transmission model used to capture disease propagation determines the outbreak potential, the net reproductive success (R0). This review offers an insight into the assumptions and motivation behind common transmission mechanisms and introduces a general framework with which contact rates, the most important parameter in disease dynamics, determines the transmission method. By using a general function introduced here and this general transmission model framework, we provide a guide for future disease ecologists for how to pick the contact function that best suites their system. Additionally, this manuscript attempts to bridge the gap between mathematical disease modelling and the controversially and heavily debated disease-diversity relationship, by expanding the summarized models to multiple hosts systems and explaining the role of host diversity in disease transmission. By outlining the mechanisms of transmission into a stepwise process, this review will serve as a guide to model pathogens in multi-host systems. We will further describe these models it in the greater context of host diversity and its effect on disease outbreaks, by introducing a novel method to include host species’ evolutionary history into the framework.
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 | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".