| Literature DB >> 33386731 |
Gregory E Glass1, Claudia Ganser1, William H Kessler1.
Abstract
Tick-borne pathogens are of growing concern. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) developed guidelines standardizing surveys of tick vectors to better monitor the changes in their occurrences. Unbiased surveillance data, from standardized surveys, are presumed critical to generate valid species distribution models (SDMs). We tested previously generated SDMs from standardized protocols for three medically important ticks [Amblyomma americanum (Linnaeus, Ixodida, Ixodidae), Ixodes scapularis (Say, Ixodida, Ixodidae), and Dermacentor variabilis (Say, Ixodida, Ixodidae)]. These previous models ruled out a quarter to half of the state as having these species, with consensus occurrence in about a quarter of the state. New surveys performed throughout 2019 on 250 transects at 43 sites indicated the rule-out functions were 100% accurate for I. scapularis and D. variabilis and 91.9% for A. americanum. As SDM concordance increased, the proportion of transects yielding ticks increased. Independent surveys of SDMs provide external validation-an aspect missing from many SDM studies.Entities:
Keywords: external validity; species distribution model; surveillance; tick; tickborne disease
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 33386731 PMCID: PMC8122235 DOI: 10.1093/jme/tjaa282
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Med Entomol ISSN: 0022-2585 Impact factor: 2.435
The proportion of mainland Florida identified as suitable for three tick species by none of the SDMs, one or two models, three or four models, or all five SDMs
| Concordance |
|
|
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| % area (km2) | % trans. (no. of trans.) | % area (km2) | % trans. (no. of trans.) | % area (km2) | % trans. (no. of trans.) | |
| None | 46.6 (68,388) | 8.1 (75) | 39.5 (57,968) | 0.0 (51) | 26.0 (38,156) | 0.0 (35) |
| 1–2 | 30.8 (45,200) | 19.7 (81) | 33.0 (48,428) | 8.2 (110) | 50.9 (74,698) | 1.5 (135) |
| 3–4 | 13.0 (19,078) | 41.7 (36) | 18.0 (26,416) | 10.2 (39) | 21.2 (31,112) | 7.4 (54) |
| 5 | 9.6 (14,088) | 50.0 (58) | 9.4 (13,795) | 56.0 (50) | 1.9 (2,788) | 19.2 (26) |
For example, 9.4% of the state was deemed suitable for I. scapularis by all five models and this covered 13,795 km2. Fifty-six percent of the 50 transects in this region yielded I. scapularis. Large, but varying, portions of the state were predicted unsuitable for each species (concordance = none). The total land area of mainland Florida was estimated as 146,754.6 km2 (Kessler et al. 2019). SDM, species distribution model; trans., transect.
Fig. 1.(A) Ensemble model prediction for Amblyomma americanum and sampling locations for 41 sites in the original study (open boxes and filled triangles) used to generate ensemble species distribution models (SDMs) (Kessler et al. 2019). Color scheme for model agreement is from Kessler et al. (2019), with gray = no models predicted occurrence through green (one or two models), yellow (three models agree), orange (four models agree), or red (all models predict occurrence). Filled triangles were surveyed during the original survey and during validation. Filled boxes indicate new validation survey sites. Insets in (A) show an example of a transect at the site with an omission error (the transect was found to be ‘tick positive’ for A. americanum, but no ensemble model predicted occurrence [Agreement = 0]), and an example of commission error (open circle; transect where questing A. americanum were not found but ensemble model predicted occurrence ‘Agreement > 0’). (B) Ensemble model prediction for Ixodes scapularis with same original and validation sites. Color scheme is as in (A). Inset only demonstrates an example of a site with a ‘commission error’ transect, no errors of omission were found for I. scapularis. (C) Ensemble model prediction for Dermacentor variabilis. Color scheme is as in (A). Inset only demonstrates an example of a site with a commission error transect, no errors of omission were found for D. variabilis.
Comparison of validation surveys (columns; transects positive/negative) with SDM predictions at the transect (rows; model indicates present/absent) and summary measures of evaluation (±95% CI)
| Model |
|
|
| ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Positive | Negative | Total | Positive | Negative | Total | Positive | Negative | Total | |
| Present | 60 | 116 | 176 | 41 | 158 | 199 | 10 | 204 | 214 |
| Absent | 6 | 68 | 74 | 0 | 51 | 51 | 0 | 36 | 36 |
| Total | 66 | 184 | 250 | 41 | 209 | 250 | 10 | 240 | 250 |
| Measure | |||||||||
| Sensitivity | 90.9 (81.3, 96.6) | 100.0 (91.4, 100.0) | 100.0 (69.2, 100.0) | ||||||
| Specificity | 37.0 (30.0, 44.4) | 24.4 (18.7, 30.8) | 15.0 (10.7, 20.2) | ||||||
| PPV | 34.1 (31.1, 37.2) | 20.6 (19.4, 21.9) | 4.7 (4.4, 4.9) | ||||||
| NPV | 91.9 (83.8, 96.1) | 100.0 | 100.0 |
CI, confidence interval; PPV, positive predictive value; NPV, negative predictive value; SDM, species distribution model.
Fig. 2.Proportion of validation transects yielding adult questing tick species as species distribution model (SDM) agreement increased. Transects with 0 concordance had all SDMs predict that tick species would be absent. Transects with five concordance had all SDMs predict that specific tick species would be present. Vertical axis is the percentage of transects in the concordance categories (Table 1) that yielded specific tick species.