↓ Skip to main content

The impact of aggregating serogroups in dynamic models of Neisseria meningitidis transmission

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Infectious Diseases, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
42 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
The impact of aggregating serogroups in dynamic models of Neisseria meningitidis transmission
Published in
BMC Infectious Diseases, July 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12879-015-1015-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Keith D Poore, Chris T Bauch

Abstract

Neisseria meningitidis (Nm) is a pathogen of multiple serogroups that is highly prevalent in many populations. Serogroups associated with invasive meningococcal disease (IMD) in Canada, for example, include A, B, C, W-135, X and Y. IMD is a rare but serious outcome of Nm infection, and can be prevented with vaccines that target certain serogroups. This has stimulated the development of dynamic models to evaluate vaccine impact. However, these models typically aggregate the various Nm serogroups into a small number of combined groups, instead of modelling each serogroup individually. The impact of aggregation on dynamic Nm model predictions is poorly understood. Our objective was to explore the impact of aggregation on dynamic model predictions. We developed two age-structured agent-based models--a 2-strain model and a 4-strain model--to simulate vaccination programs in the Canadian setting. The 2-strain model was used to explore two different groupings: C, versus all other serogroups combined; and B, versus all other serogroups combined. The 4-strain model used the four groupings: C, B, Neisseria lactamica, versus all other serogroups combined. We compared the predicted impact of monovalent C vaccine, quadrivalent ACWY vaccine (MCV-4), and monovalent B vaccine (4CMenB) on the prevalence of serogroup carriage under these different models. The 2-strain and 4-strain models predicted similar overall impacts of vaccines on carriage prevalence, especially with respect to the vaccine-targeted serogroups. However, there were some significant quantitative and qualitative differences. Declines in vaccine-targeted serogroups were more rapid in the 2-strain model than the 4-strain model, for both the C and the 4CMenB vaccines. Sustained oscillations, and evidence for multiple attractors (i.e., different types of dynamics for the same model parameters but different initial conditions), occurred in the 4-strain model but not the 2-strain model. Strain replacement was also more pronounced in the 4-strain model, on account of the 4-strain model spreading prevalence more thinly across groups and thus enhancing competitive interactions. Simplifying assumptions like aggregation of serogroups can have significant impacts on dynamic model predictions. Modellers should carefully weigh the advantages and disadvantages of aggregation when formulating models for multi-strain pathogens.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 5%
Unknown 40 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 19%
Researcher 5 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 12%
Student > Bachelor 4 10%
Student > Postgraduate 3 7%
Other 9 21%
Unknown 8 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 26%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 10%
Computer Science 3 7%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 2 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 5%
Other 11 26%
Unknown 9 21%
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 30 July 2015.
All research outputs
#18,420,033
of 22,818,766 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#5,599
of 7,676 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#189,084
of 263,145 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#114
of 141 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,818,766 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 7,676 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% 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 263,145 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 141 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.