ReviewGeoJournal2017
Towards a geocomputational landscape epidemiology: surveillance, modelling, and interventions.
Review in GeoJournal, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Drone-based microclimate analytics reveal vegetation-shade interaction as a key environmental drivers of Aedes-prone microhabitat suitability.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The ability to explicitly represent infectious disease distributions and their risk factors over massive geographical and temporal scales has transformed how we investigate how environment impacts health. While landscape epidemiology studies have shed light on many aspects of disease distribution and risk differentials across geographies, new computational methods combined with new data sources such as citizen sensors, global spatial datasets, sensor networks, and growing availability and variety of satellite imagery offer opportunities for a more integrated approach to understanding these relationships. Additionally, a large number of new modelling and mapping methods have been developed in recent years to support the adoption of these new tools. The complexity of this research context results in study-dependent solutions and prevents landscape approaches from deeper integration into operational models and tools. In this paper we consider three common research contexts for spatial epidemiology; surveillance, modelling to estimate a spatial risk distribution and the need for intervention, and evaluating interventions and improving healthcare. A framework is proposed and a categorization of existing methods is presented. A case study into leptospirosis in Sri Lanka provides a working example of how the different phases of the framework relate to real research problems. The new framework for geocomputational landscape epidemiology encompasses four key phases: characterizing assemblages, characterizing functions, mapping interdependencies, and examining outcomes. Results from Sri Lanka provide evidence that the framework provides a useful way to structure and interpret analyses. The framework reported here is a new way to structure existing methods and tools of geocomputation that are increasingly relevant to researchers working on spatially explicit disease-landscape studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.