Slashdot Mirror


An AI Hunts the Wild Animals Carrying Ebola

the_newsbeagle writes: Outbreaks of infectious diseases like Ebola follow a depressing pattern: People start to get sick, public health authorities get wind of the situation, and an all-out scramble begins to determine where the disease started and how it's spreading. Barbara Han, a code-writing ecologist, hopes her algorithms will put an end to that reactive model. She wants to predict outbreaks and enable authorities to prevent the next pandemic. Han takes a big-data approach, using a machine-learning AI to identify the wild animal species that carry zoonotic diseases and transmit them to humans.

13 of 45 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Vaporware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    FTFA:

    When we tested our rodent-sorting algorithm on the 20 percent of rodents that hadn’t been included in the training data set, it predicted species’ reservoir status with about 90 percent accuracy.
    [...]
    As the algorithm sorted through the 2,200 rodent species, it provided a list of new suspects. Some species that had previously been given a “0” for unknown reservoir status fit more neatly in the “1” category of known disease carriers. We didn’t have to wait long for validation. While we were getting our results to press, two of those suspect species were indeed recognized as novel reservoirs for human diseases. One species, a red backed vole (Myodes gapperi) native to Canada and the northern United States, was found to carry the parasite that causes echinococcosis, a nasty ailment in which cysts grow in multiple organs. And researchers identified a vole (Microtus guentheri) native to Asia Minor as a newfound reservoir for leishmaniasis, which causes skin ulcers.

    Yeah, nothing to indicate this approach might work in identifying likely reservoir hosts, and also tracking conditions where a disease outbreak is more likely.

    Perhaps you should have read the WHOLE article, and not just the first paragraph or two?

  2. Re:Vaporware by gstoddart · · Score: 3, Informative

    Well, did you keep scrolling?

    Our study yielded more than scientific insights: It also provided actionable intelligence. As the algorithm sorted through the 2,200 rodent species, it provided a list of new suspects. Some species that had previously been given a "0" for unknown reservoir status fit more neatly in the "1" category of known disease carriers. We didn't have to wait long for validation. While we were getting our results to press, two of those suspect species were indeed recognized as novel reservoirs for human diseases.

    Sure sounds to me that, for the North American populations they tested this one they actually did demonstrate it actually works.

    I'm sure it's not perfect or complete, but it sure sounds like it actually created some testable results.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  3. Re:Maybe we actually need fewer humans. by swb · · Score: 1

    Isn't it just a matter of time? Pandemics have swept through humanity fairly regularly. Modern countries seem to have escaped them for the most part recently, partly because they've got stuff like fresh water and septic systems, partly because medical science inoculates against some of them, and partly because self-awareness has enabled us to minimize others (AIDS).

    But it seems like eventually something will come along that none of those things does much for, at least in the short term.

  4. Re:Maybe we actually need fewer humans. by fredrated · · Score: 1

    Sometimes I think we are like the fire-suppressed forests. We have been putting out fires for a hundred years, letting the understory build up until finally a fire feeds on this accumulated fuel and rages unstoppable. As disease suppression allows the human understory to build relentlessly, one day a disease will come along that rages through the population.

  5. easy to prevent by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

    She wants to predict outbreaks and enable authorities to prevent the next pandemic.

    it's easy to prevent, you just need good sanitation laws. the problem we face is corrupt governments who don't give a flying fuck about their people. there is a reason that outbreaks start in poor areas with bad/no sanitation practices.

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    1. Re:easy to prevent by SuricouRaven · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ebola gets a lot of attention because it's high-mortality, spreads fast in the right conditions, and is a wonderfully messy way to die - and that means lots of newspaper sales and TV ratings.

      It's the influenzas you have to look out for. People don't pay attention any more after the bird flu and swine flu fizzled out without producing the pandemic everyone was fearing - and perhaps the next one will do likewise. Eventually, though, we'll get another really nasty strain and it'll be 1918 all over again. Fifty million dead last time - people forgot quickly.

      Ask most people today about the 1918 pandemic and most wouldn't know about it - and of those that do know, half of it only know it from a passing mention in Twilight.

  6. Re:Ebola gets deadlier by penguinoid · · Score: 1

    If you confuse a serious response as an explanation of a joke, then you're a shitty moron.

    --
    Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
  7. Re:Maybe we actually need fewer humans. by internerdj · · Score: 2

    We are making some changes on that front. We are starting to look critically at overuse and misuse of anti-biotics. We are starting to look positively at some of the things that grow inside of us. Of the many things we do terribly, we actually might be able to turn this one around before it bites us too badly.

  8. Re:Maybe we actually need fewer humans. by The+Faywood+Assassin · · Score: 1

    Yes, I guess I am.

    --

    "I'm a humble person really,

    I'm actually much greater than I think I am"

  9. Re:Maybe we actually need fewer humans. by The+Faywood+Assassin · · Score: 1

    The min-use of antibiotics and the decreasing vaccination rate is going to set the stage for a pretty bad epidemic.

    It's only a matter of time.

    --

    "I'm a humble person really,

    I'm actually much greater than I think I am"

  10. Re:Vaporware by tomhath · · Score: 2

    Sure sounds to me that, for the North American populations they tested this one they actually did demonstrate it actually works.

    Not really. While they were crunching numbers, other scientists not connected in any way with this project identified a couple of rodents that are disease vectors. It turned out that those two rodents were in her "maybe a vector" bucket. All that demonstrates is that those two are not false positives.

  11. How Ebola spreads .. by nickweller · · Score: 2

    "Outbreaks of infectious diseases like Ebola follow a depressing pattern: People start to get sick, public health authorities get wind of the situation, and an all-out scramble begins to determine where the disease started and how it's spreading"

    I though Ebola spread because of the traditional burial practices of the indigenous peoples. Namely some traditional healer traveling from the next village over, performing a 'purification' ritual, consisting of a crude form of embalming and 'sitting in' with the deceased. The healer goes back to her home village and dies from Ebola. People from miles around attend the funeral and go back home and spread Ebola. Over three hundred cases from the one funeral ref.

  12. "Are you carrying Ebola?" by Culture20 · · Score: 1

    Anyone else imagine Arnold calling up wild animals from a pay phone?