A nationwide joint spatial modelling of simultaneous epidemics of dengue, chikungunya, and Zika in Colombia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Chikungunya, and Zika emerged in the 2010s in the Americas, causing simultaneous epidemics with dengue. However, little is known of these Aedes-borne diseases (ABDs) joint patterns and contributors at the population-level. METHODS: We applied a novel Poisson-multinomial spatial model to the registered cases of dengue (n = 291,820), chikungunya (n = 75,913), and Zika (n = 72,031) by municipality in Colombia, 2014-2016. This model estimates the relative risk of total ABDs cases and associated factors, and, simultaneously, the odds of presence and contributors of each disease using dengue as a baseline category. This approach allows us to identify combined characteristics of ABDs, since they are transmitted by the same mosquitoes, while also identifying differences between them. RESULTS: We found an increased ABDs risk in valleys and south of the Andes, the Caribbean coast, and borders, with temperature as the main contributor (Relative Risk 2.32, 95% Credible Interval, CrI, 2.05-2.64). Generally, dengue presence was the most probable among the ABDs, although that of Zika was greater on Caribbean islands. Chikungunya and Zika were more likely present than dengue in municipalities with less vegetation (Odds Ratio, OR, 0.75, 95%CrI 0.65-0.86, and 0.85, 95%CrI 0.74-0.99, respectively). Chikungunya tended to be present in more socially vulnerable areas than dengue (OR 1.20, 95%CrI 0.99-1.44) and Zika (OR 1.19, 95%CrI 0.95-1.48). CONCLUSIONS: Important differences between the ABDs were identified and can help guide local and context-specific interventions, such as those aimed at preventing cases importation in border and tourism locations and reducing chikungunya burden in socially vulnerable regions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".