SummaryThe aim of this work was to explore the comparative epidemiology of influenza viruses, H5N1 and H7N9, in both bird and human populations. Specifically, the article examines similarities and differences between the two viruses in their genetic characteristics, distribution patterns in human and bird populations and postulated mechanisms of global spread. In summary, H5N1 is pathogenic in birds, while H7N9 is not. Yet both have caused sporadic human cases, without evidence of sustained, human-to-human spread. The number of H7N9 human cases in the first year following its emergence far exceeded that of H5N1 over the same time frame. Despite the higher incidence of H7N9, the spatial distribution of H5N1 within a comparable time frame is considerably greater than that of H7N9, both within China and globally. The pattern of spread of H5N1 in humans and birds around the world is consistent with spread through wild bird migration and poultry trade activities. In contrast, human cases of H7N9 and isolations of H7N9 in birds and the environment have largely occurred in a number of contiguous provinces in south-eastern China. Although rates of contact with birds appear to be similar in H5N1 and H7N9 cases, there is a predominance of incidental contact reported for H7N9 as opposed to close, high-risk contact for H5N1. Despite the high number of human cases of H7N9 and the assumed transmission being from birds, the corresponding level of H7N9 virus in birds in surveillance studies has been low, particularly in poultry farms. H7N9 viruses are also diversifying at a much greater rate than H5N1 viruses. Analyses of certain H7N9 strains demonstrate similarities with engineered transmissible H5N1 viruses which make it more adaptable to the human respiratory tract. These differences in the human and bird epidemiology of H5N1 and H7N9 raise unanswered questions as to how H7N9 has spread, which should be investigated further.

Much of contemporary associative learning research is focused on understanding how and when the associative history of cues affects later learning about those cues. Very little work has investigated the effects of the associative history of outcomes on human learning. Three experiments extended the "learned irrelevance" paradigm from the animal conditioning literature to examine the influence of an outcome's prior predictability on subsequent learning of relationships between cues and that outcome. All 3 experiments found evidence for the idea that learning is biased by the prior predictability of the outcome. Previously predictable outcomes were readily associated with novel predictive cues, whereas previously unpredictable outcomes were more readily associated with novel nonpredictive cues. This finding highlights the importance of considering the associative history of outcomes, as well as cues, when interpreting multistage designs. Associative and cognitive explanations of this certainty matching effect are discussed.

No abstract

No abstract

Preliminary evidence suggests that direct poultry contact may play a lesser role in transmission of avian influenza A(H7N9) than A(H5N1) to humans. To better understand differences in risk factors, we quantified the degree of poultry contact reported by H5N1 and H7N9 World Health Organization-confirmed cases. We used publicly available data to classify cases by their degree of poultry contact, including direct and indirect. To account for potential data limitations, we used two methods: (1) case population method in which all cases were classified using a range of sources; and (2) case subset method in which only cases with detailed contact information from published research literature were classified. In the case population, detailed exposure information was unavailable for a large proportion of cases (H5N1, 54%; H7N9, 86%). In the case subset, direct contact proportions were higher in H5N1 cases (70·3%) than H7N9 cases (40·0%) (χ 2 = 18·5, P< 0·001), and indirect contact proportions were higher in H7N9 cases (44·6%) than H5N1 cases (19·4%) (χ 2 = 15·5, P < 0·001). Together with emerging evidence, our descriptive analysis suggests direct poultry contact is a clearer risk factor for H5N1 than for H7N9, and that other risk factors should also be considered for H7N9.