| Literature DB >> 16945154 |
William H Cooke1, Katarzyna Grala, Robert C Wallis.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: West Nile virus (WNV) poses a significant health risk for residents of Mississippi. Physicians and state health officials are interested in new and efficient methods for monitoring disease spread and predicting future outbreaks. Geographic Information Systems (GIS) models have the potential to support these efforts. Environmental conditions favorable for mosquito habitat were modeled using GIS to derive WNV risk maps for Mississippi. Variables important to WNV dissemination were selected and classified as static and dynamic. The static variables included road density, stream density, slope, and vegetation. The dynamic variable represented seasonal water budget and was calculated using precipitation and evaporation estimates. Significance tests provided deterministic evidence of variable importance to the models.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2006 PMID: 16945154 PMCID: PMC1618835 DOI: 10.1186/1476-072X-5-36
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Health Geogr ISSN: 1476-072X Impact factor: 3.918
Important WNV mosquitoes of Mississippi [8,9].
| Mosquito species | Habitat preference | Flight range | Host preference | Activity time | Life cycle to transmission |
| Yellow Fever | Shaded artificial containers, tree holes | 200 m | Mammals | Crepuscular/day | 10 – 20 days |
| Asian Tiger | Artificial containers, tire piles | 200 m | Opportunistic | Crepuscular/day | 10 – 20 days |
| Salt Marsh | Salt marshes, freshwater | 2500 m | Large mammals | Crepuscular/day | 7 – 10 days |
| Tree Hole | Artificial containers, tree holes | 200 m | Mammals | Crepuscular/day | 28 days |
| Southern House | Waters heavily polluted with organic material | 2000 m | Birds | Crepuscular/night | 10 – 14 days |
| Common House | Open, polluted high in organics water | 2000 m | Birds | Crepuscular/night | 10 – 14 days |
| Dark Ricefield | Open freshwater temporary pools and ditches | At least 10 miles | Opportunistic | Day/Night | 4–10 days |
Figure 1Study area context map. Areas of WNV infections (combined human and bird data) in Mississippi in 2002 and 2003.
Figure 2WNV human cases in 2002 and 2003. Occurrences categorized by number of cases per zip code (map on left) and WNV human cases normalized by population (number of WNV cases per 10,000 residents) (map on right).
Figure 3WNV bird cases in 2002 and 2003 categorized by number of cases per zip code.
Figure 4Areas of WNV infections in 2002 and 2003. Infections categorized by the type of occurrence: bird occurrence only, human occurrence only, human and bird occurrence.
Figure 5Seasonal bird and human WNV occurrence data.
Figure 6Methodology flowchart.
Summary of static variable testing, standardization, model ranking and weight calculations.
| Variable | Relation to ecology of WNV vector mosquitoes | Mean for zip codes with | T-test significance | WNV risk level | Variable | ||
| WNV bird occurrence | no WNV bird occurrence | (p-value) | 1 – low risk | Rank | Weight | ||
| Road density | Breeding sites along roads | 1.7568 | 1.1550 | .001 | High rd. 10 | 1 | 0.4 |
| Stream density | Water as habitat | 1.1200 | 1.1868 | .010 | High sd. 1 | 2 | 0.3 |
| Slope percent | Aspect of water outflow rate | 7.1416 | 7.9886 | .028 | Gentle sl. 10 Steep sl. 1 | 3 | 0.2 |
| NDVI vegetation | Vegetation as resting and breeding sites | 164.6797 | 160.9131 | .251 | High NDVI 10 Low NDVI 1 | 4 | 0.1 |
Figure 7Landscape-base model. Results by 120 m cell (map on left); estimated WNV risk median values summarized by zip code (map on right).
Figure 8Results of seasonal models.
Summary table; results comparison and validation.
| Model | Variables/weights | Validation WNV data | Majority Risk | Mean Risk | Median Risk | |||||||||
| 0 | 1 | # hc | val. | 0 | 1 | # hc | val. | 0 | 1 | # hc | val. | |||
| Landscape -base | Road den. – 0.4 | Human cases in 2002 and 2003 | 5.4 | 6.4 | 65 | 104 | 5.5 | 6.2 | 65 | 104 | 5.5 | 6.2 | 67 | 104 |
| Summer 2002 | Land. base – 0.7 | Human cases in Sum. 2002 | 5.3 | 6.3 | 47 | 76 | 5.4 | 6.2 | 47 | 76 | 5.4 | 6.3 | 46 | 76 |
| Land. base – 0.8 | 5.4 | 6.3 | 45 | 76 | 5.5 | 6.2 | 50 | 76 | 5.5 | 6.2 | 49 | 76 | ||
| Land. base – 0.9 | 5.4 | 6.2 | 46 | 76 | 5.5 | 6.1 | 48 | 76 | 5.5 | 6.2 | 50 | 76 | ||
| Land. base – 1.0 | 5.5 | 6.3 | 44 | 76 | 5.6 | 6.1 | 44 | 76 | 5.5 | 5.8 | 46 | 76 | ||
| Fall 2002 | Land. base – 0.7 | Human cases in Fall 2002 | 5.5 | 5.9 | 20 | 33 | 5.5 | 5.8 | 16 | 33 | 5.5 | 5.8 | 16 | 33 |
| Land. base – 0.8 | 5.5 | 6.0 | 20 | 33 | 5.6 | 5.8 | 16 | 33 | 5.6 | 5.8 | 16 | 33 | ||
| Land. base – 0.9 | 5.6 | 6.1 | 18 | 33 | 5.6 | 5.9 | 15 | 33 | 5.6 | 5.9 | 15 | 33 | ||
| Land. base – 1.0 | 5.6 | 6.1 | 19 | 33 | 5.6 | 5.9 | 17 | 33 | 5.7 | 6.0 | 18 | 33 | ||
| Summer 2003 | Land. base – 0.7 | Human cases in Sum. 2003 | 5.4 | 6.8 | 20 | 30 | 5.4 | 6.7 | 21 | 30 | 5.5 | 6.7 | 21 | 30 |
| Land. base – 0.8 | 5.4 | 6.8 | 23 | 30 | 5.5 | 6.7 | 25 | 30 | 5.5 | 6.7 | 24 | 30 | ||
| Land. base – 0.9 | 5.5 | 6.8 | 22 | 30 | 5.5 | 6.7 | 25 | 30 | 5.6 | 6.8 | 25 | 30 | ||
| Land. base – 1.0 | 5.6 | 6.9 | 24 | 30 | 5.6 | 6.7 | 24 | 30 | 5.6 | 6.8 | 25 | 30 | ||
| Fall 2003 | Land. base – 0.7 | Human cases in Fall 2003 | 5.6 | 6.6 | 16 | 27 | 5.7 | 6.4 | 16 | 27 | 5.7 | 6.5 | 16 | 27 |
| Land. base – 0.8 | 5.6 | 6.7 | 18 | 27 | 5.6 | 6.6 | 18 | 27 | 5.6 | 6.6 | 18 | 27 | ||
| Land. base – 0.9 | 5.5 | 6.9 | 24 | 27 | 5.6 | 6.7 | 23 | 27 | 5.6 | 6.8 | 23 | 27 | ||
| Land. base – 1.0 | 5.6 | 7.0 | 24 | 27 | 5.6 | 6.8 | 25 | 27 | 5.6 | 6.9 | 26 | 27 | ||
| Average % correct for all models | ||||||||||||||
The risk estimates by zip code were calculated using a zonal function. Majority, mean and median measures of risk were calculated and recorded for zip codes of WNV human occurrence (1) and zip codes of non-occurrence (0). Difference between the two categories of zip codes (0 versus 1) was determined and for all models. Estimated risk was higher for zip codes with at least one human case than for zip codes where human cases were not recorded. Modeling results were validated with human infection data (val.) for appropriate corresponding season. Number of human cases (#hc) in the high-risk category was determined. The high-risk category included zip codes of the combined top two risk classes (out of five) defined using quantile classification method. For each model percentage correct (% correct) was calculated to determine the measure of central tendency that works best for the validation. Examination of average % correct for all models indicated that the median (66.9%) and majority (66.8%) measures reflect the actual WNV risk better than the mean (61.3%).
Figure 9Summarization of risk across all seasons indicating areas environmentally prone to sustaining the WNV.
Summary of t-tests for dynamic precipitation minus evaporation in inches (P-E) variables.
| P-E variable by season | Mean for zip codes with | T-test significance (P-value) | |
| WNV bird occurrence | No WNV bird occurrence | ||
| Summer 2002 | -1.1492 | -1.2772 | .515 |
| Fall 2002 | 4.3486 | 4.1149 | .224 |
| Summer 2003 | 1.1303 | -0.8574 | .001 |
| Fall 2003 | -1.182 | 0.0585 | .080 |