Limits...
Generating social network data using partially described networks: an example informing avian influenza control in the British poultry industry.

Nickbakhsh S, Matthews L, Bessell PR, Reid SW, Kao RR - BMC Vet. Res. (2011)

Bottom Line: With particular reference to the predictive modeling of AI in GB, we find significantly different connectivity patterns across GB when network estimates incorporate the more demographically representative information provided by the GBPR; this has not been accounted for by previous epidemiological analyses.We recommend ranking geographical regions, based on relative confidence in extrapolated estimates, for prioritising further data collection.Evaluating whether and how the between-farm association frequencies impact on the risk of between-farm transmission will be the focus of future work.

View Article: PubMed Central - HTML - PubMed

Affiliation: Boyd Orr Centre for Population and Ecosystem Health, Institute for Biodiversity, Animal Health and Comparative Medicine, University of Glasgow, Bearsden Road, Scotland, G61 1QH, UK. s.nickbakhsh@vet.gla.ac.uk

ABSTRACT

Background: Targeted sampling can capture the characteristics of more vulnerable sectors of a population, but may bias the picture of population level disease risk. When sampling network data, an incomplete description of the population may arise leading to biased estimates of between-host connectivity. Avian influenza (AI) control planning in Great Britain (GB) provides one example where network data for the poultry industry (the Poultry Network Database or PND), targeted large premises and is consequently demographically biased. Exposing the effect of such biases on the geographical distribution of network properties could help target future poultry network data collection exercises. These data will be important for informing the control of potential future disease outbreaks.

Results: The PND was used to compute between-farm association frequencies, assuming that farms sharing the same slaughterhouse or catching company, or through integration, are potentially epidemiologically linked. The fitted statistical models were extrapolated to the Great Britain Poultry Register (GBPR); this dataset is more representative of the poultry industry but lacks network information. This comparison showed how systematic biases in the demographic characterisation of a network, resulting from targeted sampling procedures, can bias the derived picture of between-host connectivity within the network.

Conclusions: With particular reference to the predictive modeling of AI in GB, we find significantly different connectivity patterns across GB when network estimates incorporate the more demographically representative information provided by the GBPR; this has not been accounted for by previous epidemiological analyses. We recommend ranking geographical regions, based on relative confidence in extrapolated estimates, for prioritising further data collection. Evaluating whether and how the between-farm association frequencies impact on the risk of between-farm transmission will be the focus of future work.

Show MeSH

Related in: MedlinePlus

Reducing the Poultry Network Database into data subsets. SH = slaughterhouse; CC = catching company; PND = Poultry Network Database; GBPR = Great Britain Poultry Register.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3275467&req=5

Figure 4: Reducing the Poultry Network Database into data subsets. SH = slaughterhouse; CC = catching company; PND = Poultry Network Database; GBPR = Great Britain Poultry Register.

Mentions: A subset of farms captured by either the SH or CC surveys (n = 3308), and therefore for which only partial industry contact information was known, were used to inform the between-farm association matrix. This was considered appropriate as these farms contribute to the association-frequency of other farms captured by both surveys that were used in the statistical analyses (see Figure 4).


Generating social network data using partially described networks: an example informing avian influenza control in the British poultry industry.

Nickbakhsh S, Matthews L, Bessell PR, Reid SW, Kao RR - BMC Vet. Res. (2011)

Reducing the Poultry Network Database into data subsets. SH = slaughterhouse; CC = catching company; PND = Poultry Network Database; GBPR = Great Britain Poultry Register.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3275467&req=5

Figure 4: Reducing the Poultry Network Database into data subsets. SH = slaughterhouse; CC = catching company; PND = Poultry Network Database; GBPR = Great Britain Poultry Register.
Mentions: A subset of farms captured by either the SH or CC surveys (n = 3308), and therefore for which only partial industry contact information was known, were used to inform the between-farm association matrix. This was considered appropriate as these farms contribute to the association-frequency of other farms captured by both surveys that were used in the statistical analyses (see Figure 4).

Bottom Line: With particular reference to the predictive modeling of AI in GB, we find significantly different connectivity patterns across GB when network estimates incorporate the more demographically representative information provided by the GBPR; this has not been accounted for by previous epidemiological analyses.We recommend ranking geographical regions, based on relative confidence in extrapolated estimates, for prioritising further data collection.Evaluating whether and how the between-farm association frequencies impact on the risk of between-farm transmission will be the focus of future work.

View Article: PubMed Central - HTML - PubMed

Affiliation: Boyd Orr Centre for Population and Ecosystem Health, Institute for Biodiversity, Animal Health and Comparative Medicine, University of Glasgow, Bearsden Road, Scotland, G61 1QH, UK. s.nickbakhsh@vet.gla.ac.uk

ABSTRACT

Background: Targeted sampling can capture the characteristics of more vulnerable sectors of a population, but may bias the picture of population level disease risk. When sampling network data, an incomplete description of the population may arise leading to biased estimates of between-host connectivity. Avian influenza (AI) control planning in Great Britain (GB) provides one example where network data for the poultry industry (the Poultry Network Database or PND), targeted large premises and is consequently demographically biased. Exposing the effect of such biases on the geographical distribution of network properties could help target future poultry network data collection exercises. These data will be important for informing the control of potential future disease outbreaks.

Results: The PND was used to compute between-farm association frequencies, assuming that farms sharing the same slaughterhouse or catching company, or through integration, are potentially epidemiologically linked. The fitted statistical models were extrapolated to the Great Britain Poultry Register (GBPR); this dataset is more representative of the poultry industry but lacks network information. This comparison showed how systematic biases in the demographic characterisation of a network, resulting from targeted sampling procedures, can bias the derived picture of between-host connectivity within the network.

Conclusions: With particular reference to the predictive modeling of AI in GB, we find significantly different connectivity patterns across GB when network estimates incorporate the more demographically representative information provided by the GBPR; this has not been accounted for by previous epidemiological analyses. We recommend ranking geographical regions, based on relative confidence in extrapolated estimates, for prioritising further data collection. Evaluating whether and how the between-farm association frequencies impact on the risk of between-farm transmission will be the focus of future work.

Show MeSH
Related in: MedlinePlus