Models and data used to predict the abundance and distribution of Ixodes scapularis (blacklegged tick) in North America: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tick-borne diseases (TBD) remain prevalent worldwide, and risk assessment of tick habitat suitability is crucial to prevent or reduce their burden. This scoping review provides a comprehensive survey of models and data used to predict I. scapularis distribution and abundance in North America. We identified 4661 relevant primary research articles published in English between January 1st, 2012, and July 18th, 2022, and selected 41 articles following full-text review. Models used data-driven and mechanistic modelling frameworks informed by diverse tick, hydroclimatic, and ecological variables. Predictions captured tick abundance (n = 14, 34.1%), distribution (n = 22, 53.6%) and both (n = 5, 12.1%). All studies used tick data, and many incorporated both hydroclimatic and ecological variables. Minimal host- and human-specific data were utilized. Biases related to data collection, protocols, and tick data quality affect completeness and representativeness of prediction models. Further research and collaboration are needed to improve prediction accuracy and develop effective strategies to reduce TBD.
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 | 0.006 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".