Spatial multi-criteria decision analysis for the selection of sentinel regions in tick-borne disease surveillance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The implementation of cost-effective surveillance systems is essential for tracking the emerging risk of tick-borne diseases. In Canada, where Lyme disease is a growing public health concern, a national sentinel surveillance network was designed to follow the epidemiological portrait of this tick-borne disease across the country. The surveillance network consists of sentinel regions, with active drag sampling carried out annually in all regions to assess the density of Ixodes spp. ticks and prevalence of various tick-borne pathogens in the tick population. The aim of the present study was to prioritize sentinel regions by integrating different spatial criteria relevant to the surveillance goals. METHODS: We used spatially-explicit multi-criteria decision analyses (MCDA) to map priority areas for surveillance across Canada, and to evaluate different scenarios using sensitivity analyses. Results were shared with stakeholders to support their decision making for the selection of priority areas to survey during active surveillance activities. RESULTS: Weights attributed to criteria by decision-makers were overall consistent. Sensitivity analyses showed that the population criterion had the most impact on rankings. Thirty-seven sentinel regions were identified across Canada using this systematic and transparent approach. CONCLUSION: This novel application of spatial MCDA to surveillance network design favors inclusivity of nationwide partners. We propose that such an approach can support the standardized planning of spatial design of sentinel surveillance not only for vector-borne disease BDs, but more broadly for infectious disease surveillance where spatial design is an important component.
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 | 0.041 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".