↓ Skip to main content

Does Size Matter to Models? Exploring the Effect of Herd Size on Outputs of a Herd-Level Disease Spread Simulator

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Veterinary Science, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
35 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
Does Size Matter to Models? Exploring the Effect of Herd Size on Outputs of a Herd-Level Disease Spread Simulator
Published in
Frontiers in Veterinary Science, May 2018
DOI 10.3389/fvets.2018.00078
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mary Van Andel, Tracey Hollings, Richard Bradhurst, Andrew Robinson, Mark Burgman, M. Carolyn Gates, Paul Bingham, Tim Carpenter

Abstract

Disease spread modeling is widely used by veterinary authorities to predict the impact of emergency animal disease outbreaks in livestock and to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of different management interventions. Such models require knowledge of basic disease epidemiology as well as information about the population of animals at risk. Essential demographic information includes the production system, animal numbers, and their spatial locations yet many countries with significant livestock industries do not have publically available and accurate animal population information at the farm level that can be used in these models. The impact of inaccuracies in data on model outputs and the decisions based on these outputs is seldom discussed. In this analysis, we used the Australian Animal Disease model to simulate the spread of foot-and-mouth disease seeded into high-risk herds in six different farming regions in New Zealand. We used three different susceptible animal population datasets: (1) a gold standard dataset comprising known herd sizes, (2) a dataset where herd size was simulated from a beta-pert distribution for each herd production type, and (3) a dataset where herd size was simplified to the median herd size for each herd production type. We analyzed the model outputs to compare (i) the extent of disease spread, (ii) the length of the outbreaks, and (iii) the possible impacts on decisions made for simulated outbreaks in different regions. Model outputs using the different datasets showed statistically significant differences, which could have serious implications for decision making by a competent authority. Outbreak duration, number of infected properties, and vaccine doses used during the outbreak were all significantly smaller for the gold standard dataset when compared with the median herd size dataset. Initial outbreak location and disease control strategy also significantly influenced the duration of the outbreak and number of infected premises. The study findings demonstrate the importance of having accurate national-level population datasets to ensure effective decisions are made before and during disease outbreaks, reducing the damage and cost.

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 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 35 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 20%
Student > Master 3 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 6%
Student > Bachelor 2 6%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 10 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 8 23%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 23%
Engineering 2 6%
Environmental Science 1 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 12 34%
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 04 May 2018.
All research outputs
#20,719,477
of 23,318,744 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Veterinary Science
#5,505
of 6,529 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#288,520
of 327,415 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Veterinary Science
#68
of 68 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,318,744 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,529 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 327,415 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 68 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.