4.5 Article Proceedings Paper

Risk analysis of the spread of classical swine fever virus through 'neighbourhood infections' for different regions in Belgium

期刊

PREVENTIVE VETERINARY MEDICINE
卷 60, 期 1, 页码 27-36

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/S0167-5877(03)00080-1

关键词

classical swine fever; risk assessment; local spread; kernel estimation; spatial analysis; Belgium

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Risk factors associated with the occurrence of 'neighbourhood infections' [Epidemiology of classical swine fever. In: Truszczynski, M. (Ed.), Proceedings of the Workshop on Diagnostic Procedures and Measures to Control Classical Swine Fever in Domestic Pigs and the European Wild Boar. Pulaway, Poland, pp. 119-130] during classical swine fever (CSF) outbreaks were examined based on information collected during a CSF-epidemic, which occurred in the East Flanders Province of Belgium in 1994. The only risk factor that was associated with the occurrence of 'neighbourhood infections' was a kernel estimation of the intensity of neighbouring herds (P = 0.055) [Interactive spatial data analysis. Pearson Education Limited, Harlow, Essex], i.e. the higher the kernel estimation, the higher the risk for the occurrence of neighbourhood infections. In a second part of the study, the likelihood for the occurrence of neighbourhood infections within an area with a 1 km radius was predicted for every Belgian pig herd, assuming that the herd was infected with CSF-virus. For the prediction of these likelihoods, the model resulting from the risk assessment was used. Finally, the predicted likelihoods were transformed into a raster map after applying a smoothing technique. As a result, different areas in Belgium of higher or lower risk for CSF-virus spread through 'neighbourhood infections' could be identified on the map. The areas in Belgium where CSF-outbreaks including 'neighbourhood infections' occurred in the past decades were all predicted by the model to be of high risk. (C) 2003 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据