↓ Skip to main content

Modelling zoonotic diseases in humans: comparison of methods for hantavirus in Sweden

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Health Geographics, September 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
84 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
Modelling zoonotic diseases in humans: comparison of methods for hantavirus in Sweden
Published in
International Journal of Health Geographics, September 2012
DOI 10.1186/1476-072x-11-39
Pubmed ID
Authors

Caroline B Zeimes, Gert E Olsson, Clas Ahlm, Sophie O Vanwambeke

Abstract

Because their distribution usually depends on the presence of more than one species, modelling zoonotic diseases in humans differs from modelling individual species distribution even though the data are similar in nature. Three approaches can be used to model spatial distributions recorded by points: based on presence/absence, presence/available or presence data. Here, we compared one or two of several existing methods for each of these approaches. Human cases of hantavirus infection reported by place of infection between 1991 and 1998 in Sweden were used as a case study. Puumala virus (PUUV), the most common hantavirus in Europe, circulates among bank voles (Myodes glareolus). In northern Sweden, it causes nephropathia epidemica (NE) in humans, a mild form of hemorrhagic fever with renal syndrome.Logistic binomial regression and boosted regression trees were used to model presence and absence data. Presence and available sites (where the disease may occur) were modelled using cross-validated logistic regression. Finally, the ecological niche model MaxEnt, based on presence-only data, was used.In our study, logistic regression had the best predictive power, followed by boosted regression trees, MaxEnt and cross-validated logistic regression. It is also the most statistically reliable but requires absence data. The cross-validated method partly avoids the issue of absence data but requires fastidious calculations. MaxEnt accounts for non-linear responses but the estimators can be complex. The advantages and disadvantages of each method are reviewed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 84 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 2%
Germany 1 1%
France 1 1%
Belgium 1 1%
United Kingdom 1 1%
Greece 1 1%
Denmark 1 1%
Unknown 76 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 24%
Researcher 15 18%
Other 7 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 6%
Student > Bachelor 5 6%
Other 16 19%
Unknown 16 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 24 29%
Environmental Science 12 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 11%
Computer Science 5 6%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 4 5%
Other 11 13%
Unknown 19 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 13 November 2012.
All research outputs
#14,784,639
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Health Geographics
#367
of 654 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#107,687
of 189,085 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Health Geographics
#9
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 654 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.7. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% 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 189,085 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.