| Literature DB >> 31002703 |
Xuzheng Shan1,2, Shengjie Lai3,4,5, Hongxiu Liao1, Zhongjie Li6, Yajia Lan7, Weizhong Yang1,6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: From 2013 to 2017, more than one thousand avian influenza A (H7N9) confirmed cases with hundreds of deaths were reported in mainland China. To identify priorities for epidemic prevention and control, a risk assessing framework for subnational variations is needed to define the epidemic potential of A (H7N9).Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31002703 PMCID: PMC6474630 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0215857
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Input dataset used in the risk assessment framework.
| Data source | Website | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Confirmed A (H7N9) human cases | EMPRES Global Animal Disease Information System (EMPRES-i) | ||
| Environmental variables | WorldClim database | ||
| Global poultry density data | Gridded Livestock of the World | ||
| Index-case potential Outputs of Stage 1 | |||
| Population density | National statistical data | ||
| Highway kilometers | National statistical data | ||
| Passenger capacity | National statistical data | ||
| Internet penetration | National statistical data | ||
| Teledensity | National statistical data | ||
| Poultry production | National statistical data | ||
| Health care institutions | National statistical data | ||
| Community health service center | National statistical data | ||
Note: A two-stage framework based on BRT and INFORM focuses on the risk of disease spread including index-case potential and epidemic potential.
Fig 1Graphical presentation of epidemic potential INFORM.
Note: the exposure to risk was the index-case potential of Stage 1.
Fig 2Geographic distribution of A (H7N9) cases from 2012 to 2017.
Note: Data were unavailable in the grey regions in the map.
Relative influence of the variables in the BRT model (%).
| variables | Relative influence (IQR) |
|---|---|
| poultry density | 24.59(3.73) |
| Mean Temperature of Warmest Quarter | 22.57(5.94) |
| Precipitation of Driest Month | 8.91(3.26) |
| Precipitation of Driest Quarter | 4.98(5.75) |
| Precipitation of Coldest Quarter | 4.01(2.86) |
| Mean Diurnal Range | 3.95(1.87) |
| Mean Temperature of Wettest Quarter | 3.72(0.54) |
| Precipitation of Wettest Quarter | 3.60(0.76) |
| Precipitation Seasonality (Coefficient of Variation) | 3.50(0.44) |
| Precipitation of Wettest Month | 2.76(0.64) |
| Annual Precipitation | 2.33(0.68) |
| Precipitation of Warmest Quarter | 1.90(0.37) |
| Mean Temperature of Driest Quarter | 1.87(0.40) |
| Temperature Seasonality (standard deviation *100) | 1.70(0.41) |
| Isothermality (BIO2/BIO7) (* 100) | 1.58(0.22) |
| Min Temperature of Coldest Month | 1.49(0.40) |
| Annual Mean Temperature | 1.39(0.95) |
| Max Temperature of Warmest Month | 1.17(0.27) |
| Temperature Annual Range (BIO5-BIO6) | 1.00(0.15) |
| Mean Temperature of Coldest Quarter | 0.64(0.22) |
Note: The numbers showed the proportion of the influence to the probability based on the BRT model, IQR: Inter-quartile Range.
Fig 3Index-case potential and epidemic potential based on INFORM.
Note: (A) Index-case potential standardized by INFORM methods. (B) Epidemic potential based on INFORM. Those coloured in red had high risk and in white had low risk. Data are unavailable in the grey regions in the map.
INFORM of epidemic potential (Stage 2).
| Province | Index-case potential | Vulnerability | Lack of coping capacity | Epidemic potential (Stage 2) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall (median and IQR) | 1.2 (0.2, 3.1) | 4.1 (3.1, 5.3) | 7.8 (6.6, 8.8) | 2.9 (1.6, 4.2) |
| Anhui | 5.1 | 6.5 | 8.0 | 6.4 |
| Jiangsu | 7.9 | 4.7 | 5.0 | 5.7 |
| Tianjin | 10.0 | 1.8 | 9.8 | 5.6 |
| Jiangxi | 3.1 | 6.5 | 7.1 | 5.2 |
| Hunan | 4.3 | 6.8 | 4.4 | 5.1 |
| Shanghai | 9.4 | 1.1 | 9.5 | 4.6 |
| Hubei | 2.4 | 5.7 | 6.7 | 4.5 |
| Guangdong | 4.6 | 4.1 | 4.2 | 4.3 |
| Guangxi | 2.0 | 4.9 | 7.4 | 4.2 |
| Zhejiang | 4.4 | 3.0 | 5.3 | 4.1 |
| Chongqing | 1.6 | 4.3 | 8.4 | 3.9 |
| Fujian | 1.9 | 3.1 | 8.0 | 3.6 |
| Henan | 1.8 | 8.2 | 3.0 | 3.6 |
| Guizhou | 1.2 | 4.9 | 6.7 | 3.4 |
| Liaoning | 1.3 | 3.8 | 7.1 | 3.3 |
| Beijing | 5.1 | 0.7 | 8.4 | 3.2 |
| Shaanxi | 0.5 | 6.3 | 7.2 | 2.9 |
| Hebei | 0.7 | 5.0 | 6.6 | 2.8 |
| Shandong | 2.3 | 5.3 | 1.8 | 2.8 |
| Hainan | 0.4 | 2.5 | 9.9 | 2.1 |
| Shanxi | 0.4 | 3.7 | 6.9 | 2.1 |
| Jilin | 0.2 | 4.5 | 8.8 | 2.1 |
| Yunnan | 0.2 | 5.4 | 8.4 | 2.0 |
| Gansu | 0.1 | 4.1 | 7.8 | 1.6 |
| Ningxia | 0.3 | 1.2 | 9.9 | 1.6 |
| Xinjiang | 0.1 | 3.7 | 8.8 | 1.4 |
| Heilongjiang | 0.0 | 5.2 | 8.6 | 1.3 |
| Sichuan | 0.5 | 7.1 | 0.4 | 1.1 |
| Inner Mongolia | 0.1 | 3.2 | 8.4 | 1.1 |
| Xizang | 0.0 | 3.4 | 9.8 | 0.6 |
| Qinghai | 0.0 | 1.7 | 9.8 | 0.0 |