Sign up to save your podcasts
Or
Share E. Snary - Cross-validation of generic risk assessment tools: an ASF case study
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Or
E. Snary - Cross-validation of generic risk assessment tools: an ASF case study
CROSS-VALIDATION OF GENERIC RISK ASSESSMENT TOOLS: AN ASF CASE STUDY
Introduction
Risk assessments are often developed to assess the risk for a single disease and introduction pathway. However in recent years, generic risk tools have been developed that can assess the risk of incursion for multiple pathogens via multiple pathways. A collaborative project provided an opportunity for cross validation of several generic risk tools; each assessing an identical incursion scenario using, where possible, the same input data.
Materials & Methods
Seven generic RA tools were used to assess the incursion risk of African swine fever (ASF) virus to the Netherlands and Finland for the epidemiological situation in 2017 and for two hypothetical scenarios in which ASF cases were reported in wild boar and/or domestic pigs in Germany. The generic tools ranged from qualitative risk assessment tools to stochastic spatial risk models but were all parameterised using the same global databases for disease occurrence and trade in live animals and animal products. The risks for each country and scenario were calculated for each tool, for the three pathways most in common (trade in live animals, trade in animal products, and wild boar movements); relative risks were computed, and then compared across tools.
Results
For the 2017 situation, all tools evaluated the risk to the Netherlands to be higher than Finland for the live animal trade pathway, the risk to Finland the same or higher as the Netherlands for the wild boar pathway, while the tools were inconclusive on the animal products pathway. All tools agreed that the hypothetical presence of ASF in Germany increased the risk to the Netherlands, but not to Finland.
Discussion
The case study illustrated that conclusions on the risk of ASF virus incursion were similar across the generic RA tools, despite differences observed in calculated risks. It was concluded that the cross-validation contributed to the credibility of the results.
Research funded by an EFSA Partnering Grant (GP/EFSA/AFSCO/2017/01) and the CoVetLab consortium (CoVetLab 2017-5)
Emma L. Snary1
Rachel A. Taylor1, Robin R. L. Simons1, Helen Roberts2, Cecilia Hultén3, Aline A. de Koeijer4, Tapani Lyytikäinen5, Sebastian Napp6, Anette Boklund7, Ronald Petie4, Kaisa Sörén3, Manon Swanenburg4, Arianna Comin3, Leena Seppä-Lassila5, Maria Cabral4 and Clazien J. de Vos4,
1Department of Epidemiological Sciences, Animal and Plant Health Agency (APHA), Weybridge, United Kingdom
2Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (Defra), London, United Kingdom
3National Veterinary Institute (SVA), Uppsala, Sweden
4Department of Bacteriology and Epidemiology, Wageningen Bioveterinary Research (WBVR), Wageningen University & Research, Lelystad, Netherlands
5Finnish Food Authority (Ruokavirasto), Helsinki, Finland
6Centre de Recerca en Sanitat Animal (CReSA IRTA-UAB), Bellaterra, Spain
7Department of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Section for Animal Welfare and Disease Control, University of Copenhagen, Frederiksberg, Denmark
Introduction
Risk assessments are often developed to assess the risk for a single disease and introduction pathway. However in recent years, generic risk tools have been developed that can assess the risk of incursion for multiple pathogens via multiple pathways. A collaborative project provided an opportunity for cross validation of several generic risk tools; each assessing an identical incursion scenario using, where possible, the same input data.
Materials & Methods
Seven generic RA tools were used to assess the incursion risk of African swine fever (ASF) virus to the Netherlands and Finland for the epidemiological situation in 2017 and for two hypothetical scenarios in which ASF cases were reported in wild boar and/or domestic pigs in Germany. The generic tools ranged from qualitative risk assessment tools to stochastic spatial risk models but were all parameterised using the same global databases for disease occurrence and trade in live animals and animal products. The risks for each country and scenario were calculated for each tool, for the three pathways most in common (trade in live animals, trade in animal products, and wild boar movements); relative risks were computed, and then compared across tools.
Results
For the 2017 situation, all tools evaluated the risk to the Netherlands to be higher than Finland for the live animal trade pathway, the risk to Finland the same or higher as the Netherlands for the wild boar pathway, while the tools were inconclusive on the animal products pathway. All tools agreed that the hypothetical presence of ASF in Germany increased the risk to the Netherlands, but not to Finland.
Discussion
The case study illustrated that conclusions on the risk of ASF virus incursion were similar across the generic RA tools, despite differences observed in calculated risks. It was concluded that the cross-validation contributed to the credibility of the results.
Research funded by an EFSA Partnering Grant (GP/EFSA/AFSCO/2017/01) and the CoVetLab consortium (CoVetLab 2017-5)
Emma L. Snary1
Rachel A. Taylor1, Robin R. L. Simons1, Helen Roberts2, Cecilia Hultén3, Aline A. de Koeijer4, Tapani Lyytikäinen5, Sebastian Napp6, Anette Boklund7, Ronald Petie4, Kaisa Sörén3, Manon Swanenburg4, Arianna Comin3, Leena Seppä-Lassila5, Maria Cabral4 and Clazien J. de Vos4,
1Department of Epidemiological Sciences, Animal and Plant Health Agency (APHA), Weybridge, United Kingdom
2Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (Defra), London, United Kingdom
3National Veterinary Institute (SVA), Uppsala, Sweden
4Department of Bacteriology and Epidemiology, Wageningen Bioveterinary Research (WBVR), Wageningen University & Research, Lelystad, Netherlands
5Finnish Food Authority (Ruokavirasto), Helsinki, Finland
6Centre de Recerca en Sanitat Animal (CReSA IRTA-UAB), Bellaterra, Spain
7Department of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Section for Animal Welfare and Disease Control, University of Copenhagen, Frederiksberg, Denmark
View all episodes
By EuFMDCROSS-VALIDATION OF GENERIC RISK ASSESSMENT TOOLS: AN ASF CASE STUDY
Introduction
Risk assessments are often developed to assess the risk for a single disease and introduction pathway. However in recent years, generic risk tools have been developed that can assess the risk of incursion for multiple pathogens via multiple pathways. A collaborative project provided an opportunity for cross validation of several generic risk tools; each assessing an identical incursion scenario using, where possible, the same input data.
Materials & Methods
Seven generic RA tools were used to assess the incursion risk of African swine fever (ASF) virus to the Netherlands and Finland for the epidemiological situation in 2017 and for two hypothetical scenarios in which ASF cases were reported in wild boar and/or domestic pigs in Germany. The generic tools ranged from qualitative risk assessment tools to stochastic spatial risk models but were all parameterised using the same global databases for disease occurrence and trade in live animals and animal products. The risks for each country and scenario were calculated for each tool, for the three pathways most in common (trade in live animals, trade in animal products, and wild boar movements); relative risks were computed, and then compared across tools.
Results
For the 2017 situation, all tools evaluated the risk to the Netherlands to be higher than Finland for the live animal trade pathway, the risk to Finland the same or higher as the Netherlands for the wild boar pathway, while the tools were inconclusive on the animal products pathway. All tools agreed that the hypothetical presence of ASF in Germany increased the risk to the Netherlands, but not to Finland.
Discussion
The case study illustrated that conclusions on the risk of ASF virus incursion were similar across the generic RA tools, despite differences observed in calculated risks. It was concluded that the cross-validation contributed to the credibility of the results.
Research funded by an EFSA Partnering Grant (GP/EFSA/AFSCO/2017/01) and the CoVetLab consortium (CoVetLab 2017-5)
Emma L. Snary1
Rachel A. Taylor1, Robin R. L. Simons1, Helen Roberts2, Cecilia Hultén3, Aline A. de Koeijer4, Tapani Lyytikäinen5, Sebastian Napp6, Anette Boklund7, Ronald Petie4, Kaisa Sörén3, Manon Swanenburg4, Arianna Comin3, Leena Seppä-Lassila5, Maria Cabral4 and Clazien J. de Vos4,
1Department of Epidemiological Sciences, Animal and Plant Health Agency (APHA), Weybridge, United Kingdom
2Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (Defra), London, United Kingdom
3National Veterinary Institute (SVA), Uppsala, Sweden
4Department of Bacteriology and Epidemiology, Wageningen Bioveterinary Research (WBVR), Wageningen University & Research, Lelystad, Netherlands
5Finnish Food Authority (Ruokavirasto), Helsinki, Finland
6Centre de Recerca en Sanitat Animal (CReSA IRTA-UAB), Bellaterra, Spain
7Department of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Section for Animal Welfare and Disease Control, University of Copenhagen, Frederiksberg, Denmark
Introduction
Risk assessments are often developed to assess the risk for a single disease and introduction pathway. However in recent years, generic risk tools have been developed that can assess the risk of incursion for multiple pathogens via multiple pathways. A collaborative project provided an opportunity for cross validation of several generic risk tools; each assessing an identical incursion scenario using, where possible, the same input data.
Materials & Methods
Seven generic RA tools were used to assess the incursion risk of African swine fever (ASF) virus to the Netherlands and Finland for the epidemiological situation in 2017 and for two hypothetical scenarios in which ASF cases were reported in wild boar and/or domestic pigs in Germany. The generic tools ranged from qualitative risk assessment tools to stochastic spatial risk models but were all parameterised using the same global databases for disease occurrence and trade in live animals and animal products. The risks for each country and scenario were calculated for each tool, for the three pathways most in common (trade in live animals, trade in animal products, and wild boar movements); relative risks were computed, and then compared across tools.
Results
For the 2017 situation, all tools evaluated the risk to the Netherlands to be higher than Finland for the live animal trade pathway, the risk to Finland the same or higher as the Netherlands for the wild boar pathway, while the tools were inconclusive on the animal products pathway. All tools agreed that the hypothetical presence of ASF in Germany increased the risk to the Netherlands, but not to Finland.
Discussion
The case study illustrated that conclusions on the risk of ASF virus incursion were similar across the generic RA tools, despite differences observed in calculated risks. It was concluded that the cross-validation contributed to the credibility of the results.
Research funded by an EFSA Partnering Grant (GP/EFSA/AFSCO/2017/01) and the CoVetLab consortium (CoVetLab 2017-5)
Emma L. Snary1
Rachel A. Taylor1, Robin R. L. Simons1, Helen Roberts2, Cecilia Hultén3, Aline A. de Koeijer4, Tapani Lyytikäinen5, Sebastian Napp6, Anette Boklund7, Ronald Petie4, Kaisa Sörén3, Manon Swanenburg4, Arianna Comin3, Leena Seppä-Lassila5, Maria Cabral4 and Clazien J. de Vos4,
1Department of Epidemiological Sciences, Animal and Plant Health Agency (APHA), Weybridge, United Kingdom
2Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (Defra), London, United Kingdom
3National Veterinary Institute (SVA), Uppsala, Sweden
4Department of Bacteriology and Epidemiology, Wageningen Bioveterinary Research (WBVR), Wageningen University & Research, Lelystad, Netherlands
5Finnish Food Authority (Ruokavirasto), Helsinki, Finland
6Centre de Recerca en Sanitat Animal (CReSA IRTA-UAB), Bellaterra, Spain
7Department of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Section for Animal Welfare and Disease Control, University of Copenhagen, Frederiksberg, Denmark