Whence the next pandemic? The intersecting global geography of the animal-human interface, poor health systems and air transit centrality reveals conduits for high-impact spillover
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
Article activity feed
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.07.27.20163196: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
NIH rigor criteria are not applicable to paper type.Table 2: Resources
No key resources detected.
Results from OddPub: Thank you for sharing your data.
Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:Some limitations with this work regarding proxy measures require further discussion. First, the animal-human interfaces described here are based on the distributions of the species involved (wild mammals and birds, domesticated animals, and humans) rather than on direct observations of the species’ interactions in the landscape. Therefore the metrics used to represent these interfaces are proxies for interspecific interaction. Nevertheless, the …
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.07.27.20163196: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
NIH rigor criteria are not applicable to paper type.Table 2: Resources
No key resources detected.
Results from OddPub: Thank you for sharing your data.
Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:Some limitations with this work regarding proxy measures require further discussion. First, the animal-human interfaces described here are based on the distributions of the species involved (wild mammals and birds, domesticated animals, and humans) rather than on direct observations of the species’ interactions in the landscape. Therefore the metrics used to represent these interfaces are proxies for interspecific interaction. Nevertheless, the granularity of the species’ distributions was relatively fine scale (10 km × 10 km) and, given the high percentile (75th) of species’ distributions used to construct the primary risk zones, it is reasonable to assume that humans and animals do indeed share the spaces, either in whole or in part or directly or indirectly, within the interfaces we have demarcated. Second, the infant mortality rate was used as a proxy for health system performance. We recognise that health systems are complex coalescences of economic and social infrastructure, medical capacity and training, public health capacity and training, governmental organization, and the general socioeconomic status of human populations. Moreover, it would not be possible to measure these individual components with the granularity required to synthesise a geographically meaningful new construct of health systems. However, the infant mortality rate has long been recognised as both a reliably measured outcome of health systems and a robust metric for comparing the performance of heal...
Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.
Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.
Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.
Results from rtransparent:- Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
- Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
- No protocol registration statement was detected.
-
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.07.27.20163196: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
NIH rigor criteria are not applicable to paper type.Table 2: Resources
No key resources detected.
Results from OddPub: Thank you for sharing your data.
Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
Some limitations with this work regarding proxy measures require further discussion. First, the animalhuman interfaces described here are based on the distributions of the species involved (wild mammals and birds, domesticated animals, and humans) rather than on direct observations of the species’ interactions in the landscape. Therefore the metrics used to represent these interfaces are proxies for interspecific interaction. Nevertheless, …
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.07.27.20163196: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
NIH rigor criteria are not applicable to paper type.Table 2: Resources
No key resources detected.
Results from OddPub: Thank you for sharing your data.
Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
Some limitations with this work regarding proxy measures require further discussion. First, the animalhuman interfaces described here are based on the distributions of the species involved (wild mammals and birds, domesticated animals, and humans) rather than on direct observations of the species’ interactions in the landscape. Therefore the metrics used to represent these interfaces are proxies for interspecific interaction. Nevertheless, the granularity of the species’ distributions was relatively fine scale (10 km x 10 km) and, given the high percentile (75 ) of species’ distributions used to construct the primary risk zones, it is reasonable to assume that humans and animals do indeed share the spaces, either in whole or in part or directly or indirectly, within the interfaces we have demarcated. Second, the infant mortality rate was used as a proxy for health system performance. We recognise that health systems are complex coalescences of economic and social infrastructure, medical capacity and training, public health capacity and training, governmental organization, and the general socioeconomic status of human populations. Moreover, it would not be possible to measure these individual components with the granularity required to synthesise a geographically meaningful new construct of health systems. However, the infant mortality rate has long been recognised as both a reliably measured outcome of health systems and a robust metric for comparing the performance of health systems between countries . Finally, the validation case studies should not be over-interpreted with respect to anthrax or HPAI H5N1 or any other zoonosis. As described above, the current work is not intended as a th 19–21 predictive modelling study. The models used here were not trained with one set of outbreaks to identify some optimal suite of predictors, and then, once identified, tested and evaluated against an independent set of outbreaks. Rather, under the current framework specific hazard metrics for animalhuman interfaces were created by quantifying the extent to which humans share space with wildlife. The point process models were then used to determine how these metrics, data-driven and standradised but conceptualised a priori, actually fit against real-world outbreaks of important known zoonoses. It is also important to recognise that outbreak reporting as captured by the EMPRES-i system may not be geographically homogeneous, which is in fact reflected in the finding that red zone interfaces were a poorer fit to the case study outbreaks indicating that these areas may be more prone to missing cases, as expected. In conclusion, this investigation has shown that there are substantial animal-human interfaces in areas of poor health system performance, highlighting those areas of potential impactful spillover where health infrastructure may be insufficient to identify spillover cases early and block onward human-tohuman transmission should this emerge. This work further showed that there are many cities with a high degree of global connectivity that are proximate to the areas at risk of impactful spillover, and thus has identified the geographic distribution of conduits of potential high-impact spillovers. One Health practitioners can now apply this to the essential work of bolstering disease surveillance at the animalhuman interface and the adjacent hubs of global air travel to protect the world from future pandemics.
Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.
Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.
About SciScore
SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore is not a substitute for expert review. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers) in the manuscript, and detects sentences that appear to be missing RRIDs. SciScore also checks to make sure that rigor criteria are addressed by authors. It does this by detecting sentences that discuss criteria such as blinding or power analysis. SciScore does not guarantee that the rigor criteria that it detects are appropriate for the particular study. Instead it assists authors, editors, and reviewers by drawing attention to sections of the manuscript that contain or should contain various rigor criteria and key resources. For details on the results shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.07.27.20163196: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
NIH rigor criteria are not applicable to paper type.Table 2: Resources
No key resources detected.
Results from OddPub: Thank you for sharing your data.
Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
Some limitations with this work regarding proxy measures require further discussion. First, the animalhuman interfaces described here are based on the distributions of the species involved (wild mammals and birds, domesticated animals, and humans) rather than on direct observations of the species’ interactions in the landscape. Therefore the metrics used to represent these interfaces are proxies for interspecific interaction. Nevertheless, …
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.07.27.20163196: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
NIH rigor criteria are not applicable to paper type.Table 2: Resources
No key resources detected.
Results from OddPub: Thank you for sharing your data.
Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
Some limitations with this work regarding proxy measures require further discussion. First, the animalhuman interfaces described here are based on the distributions of the species involved (wild mammals and birds, domesticated animals, and humans) rather than on direct observations of the species’ interactions in the landscape. Therefore the metrics used to represent these interfaces are proxies for interspecific interaction. Nevertheless, the granularity of the species’ distributions was relatively fine scale (10 km x 10 km) and, given the high percentile (75 ) of species’ distributions used to construct the primary risk zones, it is reasonable to assume that humans and animals do indeed share the spaces, either in whole or in part or directly or indirectly, within the interfaces we have demarcated. Second, the infant mortality rate was used as a proxy for health system performance. We recognise that health systems are complex coalescences of economic and social infrastructure, medical capacity and training, public health capacity and training, governmental organization, and the general socioeconomic status of human populations. Moreover, it would not be possible to measure these individual components with the granularity required to synthesise a geographically meaningful new construct of health systems. However, the infant mortality rate has long been recognised as both a reliably measured outcome of health systems and a robust metric for comparing the performance of health systems between countries . Finally, the validation case studies should not be over-interpreted with respect to anthrax or HPAI H5N1 or any other zoonosis. As described above, the current work is not intended as a th 19–21 predictive modelling study. The models used here were not trained with one set of outbreaks to identify some optimal suite of predictors, and then, once identified, tested and evaluated against an independent set of outbreaks. Rather, under the current framework specific hazard metrics for animalhuman interfaces were created by quantifying the extent to which humans share space with wildlife. The point process models were then used to determine how these metrics, data-driven and standradised but conceptualised a priori, actually fit against real-world outbreaks of important known zoonoses. It is also important to recognise that outbreak reporting as captured by the EMPRES-i system may not be geographically homogeneous, which is in fact reflected in the finding that red zone interfaces were a poorer fit to the case study outbreaks indicating that these areas may be more prone to missing cases, as expected. In conclusion, this investigation has shown that there are substantial animal-human interfaces in areas of poor health system performance, highlighting those areas of potential impactful spillover where health infrastructure may be insufficient to identify spillover cases early and block onward human-tohuman transmission should this emerge. This work further showed that there are many cities with a high degree of global connectivity that are proximate to the areas at risk of impactful spillover, and thus has identified the geographic distribution of conduits of potential high-impact spillovers. One Health practitioners can now apply this to the essential work of bolstering disease surveillance at the animalhuman interface and the adjacent hubs of global air travel to protect the world from future pandemics.
Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.
Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.
About SciScore
SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore is not a substitute for expert review. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers) in the manuscript, and detects sentences that appear to be missing RRIDs. SciScore also checks to make sure that rigor criteria are addressed by authors. It does this by detecting sentences that discuss criteria such as blinding or power analysis. SciScore does not guarantee that the rigor criteria that it detects are appropriate for the particular study. Instead it assists authors, editors, and reviewers by drawing attention to sections of the manuscript that contain or should contain various rigor criteria and key resources. For details on the results shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.
-
