2008
DOI: 10.4269/ajtmh.2008.78.654
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Combining Mosquito Vector and Human Disease Data for Improved Assessment of Spatial West Nile Virus Disease Risk

Abstract: Assessments of spatial risk of exposure to vector-borne pathogens that combine vector and human disease data are needed for areas encompassing large tracts of public land with low population bases. We addressed this need for West Nile virus (WNV) disease in the northern Colorado Front Range by developing not only a spatial model for entomological risk of exposure to Culex tarsalis WNV vectors and an epidemiological risk map for WNV disease but also a novel risk-classification index combining data for these ind… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
37
0

Year Published

2009
2009
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
6
2
1

Relationship

2
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 53 publications
(37 citation statements)
references
References 42 publications
0
37
0
Order By: Relevance
“…There is no question that sub-county variability exists for risk of exposure to mosquito and tick vectors of human pathogens such as WNV and the Lyme disease spirochete, Borrelia burgdorferi , in the United States. [28][29][30][31][32] The basic problem when working with sub-county spatial risk patterns developed based on epidemiologic data is to determine which of the resulting patterns are real and which are likely to be analysis artifacts. Such artifacts may occur for several reasons including that 1) case files for common vector-borne diseases, such as WNV disease and Lyme disease, often lack information for likely site of vector and pathogen exposure and thus the address of residence may not be the exposure location; Privacy issues associated with dissemination of information for disease case locations (can be addressed by random offsets from actual case locations).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…There is no question that sub-county variability exists for risk of exposure to mosquito and tick vectors of human pathogens such as WNV and the Lyme disease spirochete, Borrelia burgdorferi , in the United States. [28][29][30][31][32] The basic problem when working with sub-county spatial risk patterns developed based on epidemiologic data is to determine which of the resulting patterns are real and which are likely to be analysis artifacts. Such artifacts may occur for several reasons including that 1) case files for common vector-borne diseases, such as WNV disease and Lyme disease, often lack information for likely site of vector and pathogen exposure and thus the address of residence may not be the exposure location; Privacy issues associated with dissemination of information for disease case locations (can be addressed by random offsets from actual case locations).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This is now being complemented by studies on mosquito distribution and abundance patterns, mosquito blood-feeding behavior, and enzootic WNV transmission in a wider range of ecological settings including the prairie landscape of the plains (current study; Janousek andKramer 1999, Kent et al 2009) and foothills and montane habitats at the eastern edge of the Rocky Mountains , Winters et al 2008.…”
Section: Genetic Structuring Among Collections Of CX Tarsalismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…tarsalis and Cx. pipiens are abundant in the plains landscape at the foot of the Rocky Mountains but that their abundance decreases dramatically as one moves into montane habitats at higher elevations , Winters et al 2008). We also recorded dramatic changes in mosquito species richness, composition, and abundance along elevation gradients (1,500-2,400 m) in western Larimer County .…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These ecosystems include a variety of native wildlife and associated arthropods which may carry pathogens that cause zoonotic infections from direct animal or vector-borne contact (Rayor 1985;McLean et al 1989;New et al 1993;Taylor et al 1997;Gese et al 1997;Mills et al 1998;Rhyan et al 2001;Riley et al 2004;Reeves 2007;Greger 2007;Winters et al 2008).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%