Final Report UCGIS Letter of Agreement with USGS 00HQSA0894 Overview UCGIS contracted with USGS through letter of agreement 00HQSA0894 to provide two threeday colloquia on GI Science and vector-borne diseases. These meetings were held in San Diego, California, January 2, 2001 through January 5, 2001, and in Warrenton, Virginia, May 21, 2001 through May 24, 2001. The goals of the colloquia were to: • Educate USGS staff on transmission, surveillance and control of vector-borne zoonoses • Inform the scientific community about the research currently being conducted by USGS • Facilitate development of a network among researchers interested in the integration of geographic analysis to understand these diseases better. The goals set for the meetings were met. UCGIS deliverables were: • Two colloquia • Web site containing data sets provided by USGS and participants • Conclusions I.
The Colloquia
Format A major goal of the colloquia was to facilitate the development of a network among researchers interested in the integration of geographic analysis to understand vector-borne diseases, such as malaria, dengue and West Nile virus. The network developed will be instrumental in identifying research problems and discussing solutions in the future. Participants were chosen by the Steering Committee, which was made up of representatives from USGS and UCGIS, for each meeting. Participants included experts in both GI Science and vector-borne diseases from federal agencies, academic institutions, and industry. First Colloquium January 2-5, 2001 The initial meeting was designed to introduce the participants to spatial analysis as it relates to vector-borne diseases. The discussions centered on: • Background of participating researchers Finding out about each other Identifying a common language and defining terms • What is currently known General themes: Geography and vector-borne diseases (Moore, CDC) Tools and analysis (Kitron, University of Illinois) The literature (Marble, Ohio State University) New analytical techniques
•
Surveillance (Rogerson, University at Buffalo) Scan statistics (Kulldorff, University of Connecticut) Clustering statistics (Getis, San Diego State University What can be done with current techniques, tools and knowledge Chair: Catanzaro, University of California, San Diego Overview: Geoffrey Jacquez, Biomedware Understanding geography Modeling and analysis techniques Public health issues Improving communication and education The participants broke into four groups and reported on their discussions. Data Organizational issues Scale Modeling
•
What research is necessary Chair: Gerry Rushton, University of Iowa Improved use of current data, techniques and knowledge Innovation and research
Second Colloquium May 21 – 24, 2001 The second colloquium was designed to provide participants with a wide variety of invited presentations and informal discussion and demonstration time. Presenters were: Presenter
Presentation
Uriel Kitron
GI Science in Studies of Vector-Borne Diseases: Using Patterns to Elucidate Mechanisms
Arthur Getis
Using Spatial Statistics to Identify Statistically Significant Disease Clusters
Geoffrey Jacquez
1st and 2nd Order Approaches to Health and Environmental Analysis
Matthew Nicholson
Analysis of Synchrony Within Tick Populations and How That Relates to Lyme Disease
Gregory Glass
Hantavirus
Sarah Randolph
Vector-Borne Disease Epidemiology: From Pattern to Process and Back Again
Dana Focks
Dengue Modeling Efforts: Pupal Survey, transmission Thresholds, Targeted Source Reduction, and Early Warning Systems
Lee DeCola
The 1999-2000 West Nile Virus Epizootic
Louisa Beck
Remote Sensing, GIS and Vector-Borne Diseases
Andrew Thomson
Vector-Borne Diseases – Measuring Risk to United Nations Personnel
Lyle Petersen Chet Moore
An Epidemiologist Looks at GIS and Remote Sensing
An excellent synopsis of the presentations by Dr. Chuck Croner, as well as a bibliography can be found at [web page for cdc newsletter] II
Web site and data sets
Information on the meetings and the data sets is found at [ucgis web site]. Each participant received two CD-ROMs with West Nile virus and Lyme disease data. Most of this data is available on the web site. Contact Susan McDonald Jampoler at
[email protected] for a complete CD of the West Nile virus data, including images. III
Conclusions
“Exciting things happen when disciplines interact.” Duane Marble
These conclusions are based on the panel discussion with Art Getis, Steve Guptill, Mark Wilson and Chet Moore, and the wrap-up plenary moderated by Gerry Rushton. The panel discussion focused on the common research themes presented and identification of important missing topics. Steve Guptill concluded by identifying two common threads and one common challenge that appeared in each research topic presented during the second colloquium. Each shared two common threads: • Assessing risk • Identifying the precise conditions for a disease transmission at different locations The research shared the common challenge of: • Identifying the correct tools to access and analyze collected data accurately to identify risks and conditions. Mark Wilson used the dichotomies presented by Uriel Kitron as the foundation for a comparison of common research themes. • GIS vs. remote sensing, to which he added spatial statistics Remote sensing is used to collect data and as a tool for categorizing the data. GIS is a tool to store and manipulate the data. Spatial statistics help gain insight into the data through analysis. These tools were used interactively in all the presentations, with at least two of the three sets of tools used in each. • Fine resolution vs. course resolution The appropriate resolution is based on the application, with multiple resolutions often appropriate. There was considerable discussion on the relationship of scale and resolution. Research in scale and resolution related to vector-borne diseases is continuing.
•
Vector distribution vs. disease distribution Data currently available are often inappropriate for spatial analysis. Research in vector distribution was identified as a missing topic. • Statistical vs. mathematical models Most of the research presented did not consider mathematical models. • Pattern vs. process (information vs. knowledge) Most of the research presented focused on pattern with an underlying hypothesis of process. One of the challenges is to generate new knowledge of processes. Art Getis identified three different structures that are driving the current research. These are not mutually exclusive. • Model driven approach The role and representation of space is not included explicitly in the models. Space is important to the process. Inclusion of spatial autoregressive models needs more research emphasis. • Data driven Pattern recognition and exploratory analysis take advantage of existing data. Issues of data quality, size of the samples, sampling scheme, spatial dependence, and boundary properties need to be addressed. • Tool driven Analysis is limited by the nature of the software, GIS functionality, data capture instruments. Each of these approaches drives the research, rather than the scientist driving the process. The scope of knowledge needed to master each of these approaches to too great for one specialty. Collaboration and communication between scientists will allow the researchers to drive the process. Chet Moore reemphasized determining the correct scale(s) as an important part of pattern recognition. The research question to be answered defines the scale. Patterns are scale dependent, and the scale must be matched to the study. Discussion during the wrap-up session focused on identifying any missed research topics. Topics that participants felt were not addressed in the colloquium were: • Difficulty with the way disease data is reported o Location (residence or contact) o Detail • Requirements for more detailed data o Changing levels of detail o Issues of confidentiality • Research on human activity patterns to access risk o GI Science has a tradition of incorporating human spatial activities which could aid disease research • Geographic distribution of susceptible populations Over the course of the two meetings, the goals identified by USGS were met. USGS staff interacted with many scientists on transmission, surveillance and control of vector-borne zoonoses. USGS scientists informed the scientific community about the research currently being conducted by USGS. Very importantly for the research community, the meetings
facilitated the development of a network among researchers interested in the integration of geographic analysis to understand these diseases better. The scientists involved all indicated that continued interaction between the vector-borne disease and GI Science communities was desirable. UCGIS is trying to identify additional funding opportunities for additional meetings. UCGIS is grateful to USGS for its sponsorship of this colloquia series, which will form the foundation for increased and continued cooperative multi-disciplinary research efforts.
Steering Committee January Colloquium: Stephen Guptill (USGS) Lee DeCola (USGS) Arthur Getis (UCGIS) Susan McDonald Jampoler (UCGIS) Dr. Gerard Rushton (UCGIS) May Colloquium: Stephen Guptill (USGS) Lee DeCola (USGS) Uriel Kitron (UCGIS) Susan McDonald Jampoler (UCGIS) Dr. Gerard Rushton (UCGIS)
Participants January 2001 32 participants May 2001 31 participants Scientist Dr. Ruth Allen Dr. Louisa Beck Dr. Richard Bernknopf Dr. Brad Biggerstaff Dr. Joseph Bunnell Dr. Antonio Catanzaro Dr. Ellen Cromley Dr. Charles Croner Dr. Lee DeCola Mr. Jim Falcone Dr. Linda Feldtmose Dr. Dana Focks Dr. Jerome Freier Dr. Arthur Getis Dr. Gregory Glass Dr. Stephen Guptill Dr. Ned Hayes Dr. Varuni Kulasekera Dr. Geoffrey Jacquez Ms Susan Jampoler Dr. Uriel Kitron Dr. Martin Kuldorff Dr. Nancy Lewis
01/01
05/01
x
x x x
x x x x x x
x x x x x x x x x
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
Scientist
Dr. Duane Marble Dr. Anthony Marfin Dr. David Mark Dr. Nancy Maynard Dr. Robert McLean Dr. Robert McMaster Ms Lesley Milheim Dr. Mark Miller Dr. Chester Moore Dr. Amy Morrison Dr. Stephen Morse Dr. Matthew Nicholson Dr. Lyle Petersen Ms Susan Price Dr. Sarah Randolph Dr. Donald Rice Dr. Peter Rogerson Dr. Gerard Rushton Dr. Andrew Thomson Dr. Mark Wilson Dr. Ilya Zaslavsky
01/01
05/01
x x x
x
x x x x x x x x
x x x x x x
x x x
x x x x
x x x
Budget Report The USGS grant was for $65,000, with UCGIS contributing an additional $20,000 towards the cost of the meetings and administrative support. A breakdown of expenses through September 15, 2001 is outlined in the table below. 09 USGS Income Grants Total Income
UCGIS
TOTAL
65,000.00
20,000.00
85,000.00
65,000.00
20,000.00
85,000.00
1.95
1.95
12,967.50
12,967.50
6.27 3,986.00
6.27 3,986.00
1244.37
5,471.98
235.97 2,166.50
235.97 2,166.50
162.78
162.78
32.74
32.74 60,772.39
65,000.00
20,804.08
85,804.08
0.00
-804.08
-804.08
Expense Bank Service Charges Administrative Staff Duplication Internet Support Meetings/Seminar
4,227.61
Office Supplies Payroll Expenses Postage and Delivery Telephone Travel & Meals Total Expense Net Income
60,772.39
