↓ Skip to main content

Relevance of Indirect Transmission for Wildlife Disease Surveillance

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Veterinary Science, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
55 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
Relevance of Indirect Transmission for Wildlife Disease Surveillance
Published in
Frontiers in Veterinary Science, November 2016
DOI 10.3389/fvets.2016.00110
Pubmed ID
Authors

Martin Lange, Stephanie Kramer-Schadt, Hans-Hermann Thulke

Abstract

Epidemiological models of infectious diseases are essential tools in support of risk assessment, surveillance design, and contingency planning in public and animal health. Direct pathogen transmission from host to host is an essential process of each host-pathogen system and respective epidemiological modeling concepts. It is widely accepted that numerous diseases involve indirect transmission (IT) through pathogens shed by infectious hosts to their environment. However, epidemiological models largely do not represent pathogen persistence outside the host explicitly. We hypothesize that this simplification might bias management-related model predictions for disease agents that can persist outside their host for a certain time span. We adapted an individual-based, spatially explicit epidemiological model that can mimic both transmission processes. One version explicitly simulated indirect pathogen transmission through a contaminated environment. The second version simulated direct host-to-host transmission only. We aligned the model variants by the transmission potential per infectious host (i.e., basic reproductive number R0) and the spatial transmission kernel of the infection to allow unbiased comparison of predictions. The quantitative model results are provided for the example of surveillance plans for early detection of foot-and-mouth disease in wild boar, a social host. We applied systematic sampling strategies on the serological status of randomly selected host individuals in both models. We compared between the model variants the time to detection and the area affected prior to detection, measures that strongly influence mitigation costs. Moreover, the ideal sampling strategy to detect the infection in a given time frame was compared between both models. We found the simplified, direct transmission model to underestimate necessary sample size by up to one order of magnitude but to overestimate the area put under control measures. Thus, the model predictions underestimated surveillance efforts but overestimated mitigation costs. We discuss parameterization of IT models and related knowledge gaps. We conclude that the explicit incorporation of IT mechanisms in epidemiological modeling may reward by adapting surveillance and mitigation efforts.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users 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 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Germany 1 2%
France 1 2%
Unknown 52 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 15 27%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 15%
Student > Master 5 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 5%
Student > Bachelor 3 5%
Other 9 16%
Unknown 12 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 20 36%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 8 15%
Environmental Science 4 7%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 4%
Engineering 2 4%
Other 5 9%
Unknown 14 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 07 November 2023.
All research outputs
#7,960,449
of 25,850,376 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Veterinary Science
#1,480
of 8,245 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#129,473
of 418,808 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Veterinary Science
#11
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,850,376 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,245 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its peers.
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 418,808 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.