↓ Skip to main content

Using Auxiliary Information to Improve Wildlife Disease Surveillance When Infected Animals Are Not Detected: A Bayesian Approach

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, March 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
62 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Using Auxiliary Information to Improve Wildlife Disease Surveillance When Infected Animals Are Not Detected: A Bayesian Approach
Published in
PLOS ONE, March 2014
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0089843
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dennis M. Heisey, Christopher S. Jennelle, Robin E. Russell, Daniel P. Walsh

Abstract

There are numerous situations in which it is important to determine whether a particular disease of interest is present in a free-ranging wildlife population. However adequate disease surveillance can be labor-intensive and expensive and thus there is substantial motivation to conduct it as efficiently as possible. Surveillance is often based on the assumption of a simple random sample, but this can almost always be improved upon if there is auxiliary information available about disease risk factors. We present a Bayesian approach to disease surveillance when auxiliary risk information is available which will usually allow for substantial improvements over simple random sampling. Others have employed risk weights in surveillance, but this can result in overly optimistic statements regarding freedom from disease due to not accounting for the uncertainty in the auxiliary information; our approach remedies this. We compare our Bayesian approach to a published example of risk weights applied to chronic wasting disease in deer in Colorado, and we also present calculations to examine when uncertainty in the auxiliary information has a serious impact on the risk weights approach. Our approach allows "apples-to-apples" comparisons of surveillance efficiencies between units where heterogeneous samples were collected.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 62 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 5%
Unknown 59 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 18 29%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 19%
Other 6 10%
Student > Postgraduate 5 8%
Student > Master 5 8%
Other 10 16%
Unknown 6 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 22 35%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 11 18%
Environmental Science 7 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 5%
Engineering 2 3%
Other 7 11%
Unknown 10 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 October 2014.
All research outputs
#18,369,403
of 22,751,628 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#154,394
of 194,172 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#162,545
of 224,543 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#4,113
of 5,394 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,751,628 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 194,172 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.1. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 224,543 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5,394 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.