A protocol for biodiversity-informed wildlife disease surveillance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Land use and climate change are increasing the risk of spillover of zoonotic disease into human populations. However, we lack actionable information about the prevalence of pathogens in wildlife populations for most of the globe, challenging our ability to implement strategies to prevent zoonoses. Even when this data exists, it has historically been sampled opportunistically and without guidance based on known geographic distributions of hosts of zoonotic pathogens. Biosurveillance is essential to mitigating zoonotic spillover risk, but given the expensive nature of monitoring pathogens in wildlife, we need to be strategic about deciding where and what to sample to obtain as much useful information as possible — particularly to identify regions where spillover is most probable and implement preventative measures to mitigate outbreak risk. The field of biodiversity monitoring has established many practices that can directly inform optimal biosurveillance efforts. One such concept is the Biodiversity Observation Network (or BON), which aims to select monitoring locations that most effectively and efficiently capture the status and trends of biodiversity. We present a protocol for integrating data on host biodiversity into sampling priority for wildlife disease surveillance based on host species distribution models, with optional potential to integrate pathogen prevalence data (if available). This protocol has the flexibility to target different forms of sampling (collecting host occurrence vs. pathogen prevalence data) to adapt to different levels of data availability, but still makes adaptive sampling recommendations based on a principled understanding of host distribution and pathogen biology. We illustrate this flexibility with two case studies, prioritizing sampling for Hanta- and Arenaviridae in rodents and shrews in India and South Korea, respectively representing data poor and data rich contexts. We view this framework as a basis for integrating long-term biosurveillance and biodiversity monitoring programs, and maximizing the useful information available for public health decision making.
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 | 0.043 | 0.060 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.126 | 0.051 |
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".