A new methodology to extrapolate disease freedom to an area using surveillance results from selected aquatic populations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
According to Chapter 1.4 of the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH) Aquatic Animal Health Code, an entire country or zone can be classified as free of a disease only if there is compelling evidence that all susceptible populations within the country or zone are free. However, the methods for achieving freedom are not prescribed in the WOAH standards and guidelines. Within this context, this paper describes a novel methodology to determine if surveillance results can be extrapolated from a study population to a target population. A framework of six criteria was developed to standardize a method for extrapolating surveillance results to other susceptible populations that have not been sampled. Criteria 1 assesses the internal validity for the freedom claim on the source population. Criteria 2 assesses which other susceptible populations have a non-negligible probability of exposure. Criteria 3 assesses whether the risk of infection upon exposure of the source population is the same or greater than each of the other susceptible populations. Finally, Criteria 4, 5 and 6 assess if the other susceptible populations would transmit the infection to the source population or if they have the same exposure pathways as the source population. We illustrate the use of this novel methodology using two hypothetical case scenarios. The presented methodology has the advantage of being applicable either retrospectively or prospectively. When applied retrospectively, it can be used to assess if the surveillance results of the source population can be extrapolated to the target population. When applied prospectively it can be used to design a more efficient surveillance system by selecting source populations from which it is easier to extrapolate surveillance results to the rest of the target population. Conclusions drawn using this methodology depend on the validity of the assumptions made when working through the methodology. We therefore recommend cautious application of the criteria and thorough review of all assumptions.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".