Dengue is a systemic viral infection transmitted between humans by Aedes mosquitoes. For some patients, dengue is a life-threatening illness. There are currently no licensed vaccines or specific therapeutics, and substantial vector control efforts have not stopped its rapid emergence and global spread. The contemporary worldwide distribution of the risk of dengue virus infection and its public health burden are poorly known. Here we undertake an exhaustive assembly of known records of dengue occurrence worldwide, and use a formal modelling framework to map the global distribution of dengue risk. We then pair the resulting risk map with detailed longitudinal information from dengue cohort studies and population surfaces to infer the public health burden of dengue in 2010. We predict dengue to be ubiquitous throughout the tropics, with local spatial variations in risk influenced strongly by rainfall, temperature and the degree of urbanization. Using cartographic approaches, we estimate there to be 390 million (95% credible interval 284-528) dengue infections per year, of which 96 million (67-136) manifest apparently (any level of disease severity). This infection total is more than three times the dengue burden estimate of the World Health Organization. Stratification of our estimates by country allows comparison with national dengue reporting, after taking into account the probability of an apparent infection being formally reported. The most notable differences are discussed. These new risk maps and infection estimates provide novel insights into the global, regional and national public health burden imposed by dengue. We anticipate that they will provide a starting point for a wider discussion about the global impact of this disease and will help to guide improvements in disease control strategies using vaccine, drug and vector control methods, and in their economic evaluation.

/pdf/the-global-distribution-and-burden-of-dengue-4d1crnic4u.pdf

The global distribution and burden of dengue

The area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, known as the AUC, is currently considered to be the standard method to assess the accuracy of predictive distribution models. It avoids the supposed subjectivity in the threshold selection process, when continuous probability derived scores are converted to a binary presence‐absence variable, by summarizing overall model performance over all possible thresholds. In this manuscript we review some of the features of this measure and bring into question its reliability as a comparative measure of accuracy between model results. We do not recommend using AUC for five reasons: (1) it ignores the predicted probability values and the goodness-of-fit of the model; (2) it summarises the test performance over regions of the ROC space in which one would rarely operate; (3) it weights omission and commission errors equally; (4) it does not give information about the spatial distribution of model errors; and, most importantly, (5) the total extent to which models are carried out highly influences the rate of well-predicted absences and the AUC scores.

/pdf/auc-a-misleading-measure-of-the-performance-of-predictive-qqj6tbb550.pdf

AUC: a misleading measure of the performance of predictive distribution models

The MaxEnt software package is one of the most popular tools for species distribution and environmental niche modeling, with over 1000 published applications since 2006. Its popularity is likely for two reasons: 1) MaxEnt typically outperforms other methods based on predictive accuracy and 2) the software is particularly easy to use. MaxEnt users must make a number of decisions about how they should select their input data and choose from a wide variety of settings in the software package to build models from these data. The underlying basis for making these decisions is unclear in many studies, and default settings are apparently chosen, even though alternative settings are often more appropriate. In this paper, we provide a detailed explanation of how MaxEnt works and a prospectus on modeling options to enable users to make informed decisions when preparing data, choosing settings and interpreting output. We explain how the choice of background samples reflects prior assumptions, how nonlinear functions of environmental variables (features) are created and selected, how to account for environmentally biased sampling, the interpretation of the various types of model output and the challenges for model evaluation. We demonstrate MaxEnt’s calculations using both simplified simulated data and occurrence data from South Africa on species of the flowering plant family Proteaceae. Throughout, we show how MaxEnt’s outputs vary in response to different settings to highlight the need for making biologically motivated modeling decisions.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1600-0587.2013.07872.x

A practical guide to MaxEnt for modeling species' distributions: what it does, and why inputs and settings matter

Most methods for modeling species distributions from occurrence records require additional data representing the range of environmental conditions in the modeled region. These data, called background or pseudo-absence data, are usually drawn at random from the entire region, whereas occurrence collection is often spatially biased toward easily accessed areas. Since the spatial bias generally results in environmental bias, the difference between occurrence collection and background sampling may lead to inaccurate models. To correct the estimation, we propose choosing background data with the same bias as occurrence data. We investigate theoretical and practical implications of this approach. Accurate information about spatial bias is usually lacking, so explicit biased sampling of background sites may not be possible. However, it is likely that an entire target group of species observed by similar methods will share similar bias. We therefore explore the use of all occurrences within a target group as biased background data. We compare model performance using target-group background and randomly sampled background on a comprehensive collection of data for 226 species from diverse regions of the world. We find that target-group background improves average performance for all the modeling methods we consider, with the choice of background data having as large an effect on predictive performance as the choice of modeling method. The performance improvement due to target-group background is greatest when there is strong bias in the target-group presence records. Our approach applies to regression-based modeling methods that have been adapted for use with occurrence data, such as generalized linear or additive models and boosted regression trees, and to Maxent, a probability density estimation method. We argue that increased awareness of the implications of spatial bias in surveys, and possible modeling remedies, will substantially improve predictions of species distributions.

/pdf/sample-selection-bias-and-presence-only-distribution-models-5al33pm4t5.pdf

Sample selection bias and presence-only distribution models: implications for background and pseudo-absence data

A wide range of modelling algorithms is used by ecologists, conservation practitioners, and others to predict species ranges from point locality data. Unfortunately, the amount of data available is limited for many taxa and regions, making it essential to quantify the sensitivity of these algorithms to sample size. This is the first study to address this need by rigorously evaluating a broad suite of algorithms with independent presence‐absence data from multiple species and regions. We evaluated predictions from 12 algorithms for 46 species (from six different regions of the world) at three sample sizes (100, 30, and 10 records). We used data from natural history collections to run the models, and evaluated the quality of model predictions with area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). With decreasing sample size, model accuracy decreased and variability increased across species and between models. Novel modelling methods that incorporate both interactions between predictor variables and complex response shapes (i.e. GBM, MARS-INT, BRUTO) performed better than most methods at large sample sizes but not at the smallest sample sizes. Other algorithms were much less sensitive to sample size, including an algorithm based on maximum entropy (MAXENT) that had among the best predictive power across all sample sizes. Relative to other algorithms, a distance metric algorithm (DOMAIN) and a genetic algorithm (OM-GARP) had intermediate performance at the largest sample size and among the best performance at the lowest sample size. No algorithm predicted consistently well with small sample size ( n < 30) and this should encourage highly conservative use of predictions based on small sample size and restrict their use to exploratory modelling.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1472-4642.2008.00482.x

Effects of sample size on the performance of species distribution models

Species distribution models should provide conservation practioners with estimates of the spatial distributions of species requiring attention. These species are often rare and have limited known occurrences, posing challenges for creating accurate species distribution models. We tested four modeling methods (Bioclim, Domain, GARP, and Maxent) across 18 species with different levels of ecological specialization using six different sample size treatments and three different evaluation measures. Our assessment revealed that Maxent was the most capable of the four modeling methods in producing useful results with sample sizes as small as 5, 10 and 25 occurrences. The other methods compensated reasonably well (Domain and GARP) to poorly (Bioclim) when presented with datasets of small sample sizes. We show that multiple evaluation measures are necessary to determine accuracy of models produced with presence-only data. Further, we found that accuracy of models is greater for species with small geographic ranges and limited environmental tolerance, ecological characteristics of many rare species. Our results indicate that reasonable models can be made for some rare species, a result that should encourage conservationists to add distribution modeling to their toolbox.

/pdf/the-effect-of-sample-size-and-species-characteristics-on-v3qbal7frh.pdf

The effect of sample size and species characteristics on performance of different species distribution modeling methods

This document is intended to introduce element distribution modeling (EDM) to an audience composed primarily of state Natural Heritage programs. It should be relevant to a more general audience as well, as it assumes only that the reader is a trained biologist with experience in collecting, mapping, and archiving field data on the occurrence of free-ranging organisms or their habitats (i.e., ecological communities), and with a working knowledge of statistics and geographic information systems (GIS).

/pdf/element-distribution-modeling-a-primer-or-musings-upon-3cjeu5k39p.pdf

=========================================================================== ELEMENT DISTRIBUTION MODELING: A PRIMER - or - MUSINGS UPON DEPICTING THE GEOGRAPHIC ARRANGEMENT OF BIOTA, WITH AMPLE REFERENCE TO THE HARSH LESSONS OF THE DARK MASTER EXPERIENCE

Pilar A. Hernandez

Papers

The effect of sample size and species characteristics on performance of different species distribution modeling methods

=========================================================================== ELEMENT DISTRIBUTION MODELING: A PRIMER - or - MUSINGS UPON DEPICTING THE GEOGRAPHIC ARRANGEMENT OF BIOTA, WITH AMPLE REFERENCE TO THE HARSH LESSONS OF THE DARK MASTER EXPERIENCE