Skip directly to search Skip directly to A to Z list Skip directly to site content
CDC Home

Volume 18, Number 8—August 2012

Research

Comparison of Enzootic Risk Measures for Predicting West Nile Disease, Los Angeles, California, USA, 2004–2010

Jennifer L. Kwan, Bborie K. Park, Tim E. Carpenter, Van Ngo, Rachel Civen, and William K. ReisenComments to Author 
Author affiliations: University of California, Davis, California, USA (J.L. Kwan, B.K. Park, T.E. Carpenter, W.K. Reisen); and Los Angeles County Department of Public Health, Los Angeles, California, USA (V. Ngo, R. Civen)

Main Article

Table 2

Comparison of CMVRA, vector index, and DYCAST for predicting risk for West Nile disease by the calculation threshold applied, validation method, and associated risk, Los Angeles, California, USA, 2004–2010*

Model Sensitivity Specificity PPV LRP LRN Mantel-Haenszel RR (95% CI)
CMVRA
2.6 0.976 0.815 0.588 5.261 0.03 403.453 (70.506–2,308.659)
4.1 0.317 1 1 UND 0.683 38.255 (29.425–49.736)
Vector index (percentile)
0.018 (65) 0.974 0.758 0.507 4.029 0.034 25.251 (18.120–35.033)
0.041 (75) 0.846 0.902 0.688 8.631 0.171 25.383 (18.350–35.112)
0.095 (85) 0.564 0.954 0.759 12.33 0.457 24.284 (17.503–33.692)
0.276 (95) 0.246 0.993 0.909 36.231 0.748 23.253 (16.878–32.036)
DYCAST
Daily 0.268 0.165 <0.001 0.321 4.443 10.112 (7.367–13.880)
Biweekly 0.361 0.045 0.006 0.378 14.242 9.756 (7.764–12.258)

*CMVRA, California Mosquito-Borne Virus Risk Assessment; DYCAST, Dynamic Continuous-Area Space-Time system; PPV, positive predictive value; LRP, likelihood ratio positive; LRN, likelihood ratio negative; RR, relative risk; UND, undefined due to the high specificity.

Main Article

Top of Page

USA.gov: The U.S. Government's Official Web PortalDepartment of Health and Human Services
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention   1600 Clifton Rd. Atlanta, GA 30333, USA
800-CDC-INFO (800-232-4636) TTY: (888) 232-6348 - Contact CDC–INFO