MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388659777 · doi:10.1101/2023.11.11.566690

Spatiotemporal overlap and contact rates among small Indian mongooses and free-roaming domestic dogs in Puerto Rico: Implications for rabies virus transmission

2023· preprint· en· W4388659777 on OpenAlexafffund
Caroline Sauvé, Are R. Berentsen, Amy T. Gilbert, Steven F. Llanos, Patrick A. Leighton

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2023
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicRabies epidemiology and control
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersNational Wildlife Research CenterNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAnimal and Plant Health Inspection ServiceU.S. Department of Agriculture
KeywordsMongooseRabiesBiologyIntraspecific competitionWildlifeZoologyInterspecific competitionRabies virusEcologyVeterinary medicineGeographyMedicineVirology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Small Indian mongooses ( Urva auropunctata ) are the primary terrestrial wildlife rabies reservoir on Puerto Rico, the Dominican Republic, Cuba and Grenada, where they represent a risk to public health through direct human exposure and through transmission of rabies virus to domestic animals that have close association with humans. Historically rabies virus was introduced via domestic dogs and then later shifted into mongoose populations on Puerto Rico and other islands, yet domestic dog-mongoose ecological interactions have been understudied throughout the Caribbean. In this study, we derived daily activity patterns from baited camera traps, and investigated the use of proximity and GPS tracking data acquired concomitantly from mongooses and free-ranging domestic dogs (FRDD) to characterise intra- and interspecific contacts and estimate contact rates. Our results highlight that although mongooses and FRDD are both relatively active in late afternoon, close interspecific contacts only occurred among 4% of collared mongoose-dog dyads, were infrequent (range: 0 – 0.19; median = 0 contacts per day), and were spatially restricted to road and forest edges. Mongooses were only documented to contact feral FRDD, whereas no mongoose contacts with stray FRDD were detected. The space use by stray FRDD and association to humans may play a role in limiting direct contacts with mongooses and the associated risks of rabies virus cross-species transmission. Intraspecific contacts were documented among 11% of collared mongoose-mongoose dyads, occurred at a rate ranging between 0 – 0.57 (median = 0) contacts per day, and took place within wildlands. Intraspecific contacts were documented among 30% of collared dog dyads, at rates ranging between 0 – 3.37 (median = 0) contacts per day, which was more frequent contact than observed for collared mongooses ( χ 2 = 8.84; DF =2; P = 0.012). All dog-dog contacts occurred in proximity to human residential development and involved both stray-stray and stray-feral FRDD collared dyads. Feral FRDD may represent a rabies virus vector between mongooses and FRDD living close to humans. Home range overlap was a significant predictor of contact rates ( P < 0.001) among intra- and interspecific dyads of both species and may represent a useful proxy for contact between species that also overlap in daily activity patterns. Transitional areas between wildlands and human residential development could represent hotspots for infectious disease transmission between mongooses and feral FRDDs. Characterization and quantification of contact rates in mongooses and FRDDs across the wildland-urban gradient across wet and dry seasons could help to inform animal rabies control strategies on Puerto Rico and other Caribbean islands with enzootic mongoose rabies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.076

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.228 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)Same topicRabies epidemiology and controlFrench-language works237,207