Skip to main content

Advertisement

Figure 2 | Parasites & Vectors

Figure 2

From: Utility of mosquito surveillance data for spatial prioritization of vector control against dengue viruses in three Brazilian cities

Figure 2

Model selection results from Vitoria data. Each bar represents the DIC (left-side plots) or Spearman’s correlation coefficient between the model-predicted and observed data (right-side plots) for a given model. Each covariate was lagged and scaled to the best values (i.e., from model selection shown in Additional file 2: Figure S1 and Additional file 3: Figure S2). “Null” indicates a model with only the neighborhood population size as an offset and random effects of neighborhood. (A) Within-neighborhood effects. Lags are indicated. No scaling factors were used. Full i is M i,t-13  + Y i,t-1  + M i,t-13 * Y i,t-1 . (B) Comparison of nearest-neighbor (local) versus all between-neighborhood (global) effects. Lags and scales, respectively, were: 13, 0.5 (local, Mj), 12, 0.1 (global, Mj), 1, 0.5 (local and global Yj), 13 & 1, 0.5 (local M j *Y j ) and 1 & 1, 0.1 (local M j *Y j ). Structure of full j was j M j,t-x α1 +  j Y j, t-y α2 +  j (M j,t-z Y j,t-y ) α3. Full i covariates (as specified in panel A) were included in each model (i.e., there are 6 covariates in “Full j”). (C) Effects of the type of approximation (f(x j )) used for weighting global connectivity. Form used for f(x j ) is indicated under the bars (d, distance; E, economy; D, density). Full i covariates (as specified in panel A) were included in each model (i.e., red and blue bars have 4 covariates). Lags and scales, respectively, were: 1, 0.5 (Y j f(x j )), 1 & 1, 0.1 (M j Y j f(x j )). Structure of full j was j M j,t-12 0.1 +  j(Y j,t-1 f(x j )) 0.5 +  j (M j,t-1 Y j,t-1 f(x j )) 0.1.

Back to article page