Additional file 1: Table S1. of Current epidemiological evidence for predisposition to high or low intensity human helminth infection: a systematic review

PRISMA Checklist for present systematic review. (DOC 67 kb

Parameter estimates and simulation output

These data include parameter estimates and simulation output for two outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease (FMD): the outbreak in UK in 2001 and the outbreak in Miyazaki, Japan in 2010. Parameters are estimated at several time points throughout both outbreaks. Simulation of several control interventions from these time points onwards was also performed and the simulated total number of culled livestock is recorded. Details of the model structure and parameterisation of the model are described in the Methods section of the manuscript

Epidemic extent and infection risk with unrestricted, county and, state movement bans.

<p>Upper tail of the distribution (based on the 97.5^th percentile of 100 simulations) for epidemic extent and infection risk when infections are introduced to each of the 3109 counties of the continental US. (A & B) assume standard movements while (C & D) assume a county-level movement ban and (E & F) assume a state-level movement ban. (A, C, & E) the epidemic extent (the number of counties infected) for an infection seeded in each county. (B, D, & F) the infection risk (the proportion of all simulated outbreaks that infect a county).</p

In-degree distributions of the cattle movement network from a 10% sample of ICVIs.

<p>The network is aggregated into (A) state and (B) county nodes. The left-hand graphs show the frequency distribution of node in-degrees, whilst the maps show the value for that area. A logarithmic color scale is used to differentiate high (red) from low (yellow) in-degree. Counties with no sampled in-shipments are indicated in gray.</p

Out-degree distributions of the cattle movement network from a 10% sample of ICVIs.

<p>The network is aggregated into (A) state and (B) county nodes. The left-hand graphs show the frequency distribution of node out-degrees, while the maps show the value for that area. A logarithmic color scale is used to differentiate high (dark blue) from low (light blue) out-degree. Counties with no sampled out-shipments are indicated in gray.</p

Projections and relative rankings of various control strategies of total animals culled, and estimates of infected but undetected farms, for the first five weeks and the final week of the 2001 foot-and-mouth disease outbreak in UK.

<p>A) Distribution of total animal culls from forward simulations, here shown as kernel density estimates (violin plots), are seeded either using parameter estimates from the end of the outbreak (Comp.; ‘complete’), or at the specific time point (Accr.; ‘accrued’). B) Rankings of control interventions are according to mean projections. Proportion (C) of times each control was optimal when bootstrap samples are made from distributions in (A). For all time points see <a href="http://www.ploscompbiol.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1006202#pcbi.1006202.s009" target="_blank">S9</a> and <a href="http://www.ploscompbiol.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1006202#pcbi.1006202.s010" target="_blank">S10</a> Figs.</p

Disease simulation model parameters.

<p>^*Units in Premises (days) ⁻¹.</p>†<p>Unit-less parameter.</p>‡<p>Units in kilometers.</p>§<p>Units in days.</p>¶<p>Sensitivity analysis was not performed on this parameter.</p

Summary of control interventions used in the simulations.

<p>Summary of control interventions used in the simulations.</p

Summary table of mathematical symbols used.

<p>Summary table of mathematical symbols used.</p

Disease transmission routes in the model.

<p>*See Section C in <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0091724#pone.0091724.s006" target="_blank">Text S1</a> and Lindström et al. <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0091724#pone.0091724-Lindstrm2" target="_blank">[24]</a>.</p>†<p>Based on county centroids.</p>‡<p>In both the focal and neighboring counties.</p>§<p>Based on randomly distributed premises in the focal and neighboring counties.</p>¶<p>See Section B in <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0091724#pone.0091724.s006" target="_blank">Text S1</a> and NASS census data <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0091724#pone.0091724-National1" target="_blank">[15]</a>.</p>||<p>See Section E in <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0091724#pone.0091724.s006" target="_blank">Text S1</a>.</p