1
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      An AIoT‐driven smart healthcare framework for zoonoses detection in integrated fog‐cloud computing environments

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisher
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The escalating threat of easily transmitted diseases poses a huge challenge to government institutions and health systems worldwide. Advancements in information and communication technology offer a promising approach to effectively controlling infectious diseases. This article introduces a comprehensive framework for predicting and preventing zoonotic virus infections by leveraging the capabilities of artificial intelligence and the Internet of Things. The proposed framework employs IoT‐enabled smart devices for data acquisition and applies a fog‐enabled model for user authentication at the fog layer. Further, the user classification is performed using the proposed ensemble model, with cloud computing enabling efficient information analysis and sharing. The novel aspect of the proposed system involves utilizing the temporal graph matrix method to illustrate dependencies among users infected with the zoonotic flu and provide a nuanced understanding of user interactions. The implemented system demonstrates a classification accuracy of around 91% for around 5000 instances and reliability of around 93%. The presented framework not only aids uninfected citizens in avoiding regional exposure but also empowers government agencies to address the problem more effectively. Moreover, temporal mining results also reveal the efficacy of the proposed system in dealing with zoonotic cases.

          Related collections

          Most cited references40

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Prediction and prevention of the next pandemic zoonosis

          Summary Most pandemics—eg, HIV/AIDS, severe acute respiratory syndrome, pandemic influenza—originate in animals, are caused by viruses, and are driven to emerge by ecological, behavioural, or socioeconomic changes. Despite their substantial effects on global public health and growing understanding of the process by which they emerge, no pandemic has been predicted before infecting human beings. We review what is known about the pathogens that emerge, the hosts that they originate in, and the factors that drive their emergence. We discuss challenges to their control and new efforts to predict pandemics, target surveillance to the most crucial interfaces, and identify prevention strategies. New mathematical modelling, diagnostic, communications, and informatics technologies can identify and report hitherto unknown microbes in other species, and thus new risk assessment approaches are needed to identify microbes most likely to cause human disease. We lay out a series of research and surveillance opportunities and goals that could help to overcome these challenges and move the global pandemic strategy from response to pre-emption.
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Contact Patterns in a High School: A Comparison between Data Collected Using Wearable Sensors, Contact Diaries and Friendship Surveys

            Given their importance in shaping social networks and determining how information or transmissible diseases propagate in a population, interactions between individuals are the subject of many data collection efforts. To this aim, different methods are commonly used, ranging from diaries and surveys to decentralised infrastructures based on wearable sensors. These methods have each advantages and limitations but are rarely compared in a given setting. Moreover, as surveys targeting friendship relations might suffer less from memory biases than contact diaries, it is interesting to explore how actual contact patterns occurring in day-to-day life compare with friendship relations and with online social links. Here we make progresses in these directions by leveraging data collected in a French high school and concerning (i) face-to-face contacts measured by two concurrent methods, namely wearable sensors and contact diaries, (ii) self-reported friendship surveys, and (iii) online social links. We compare the resulting data sets and find that most short contacts are not reported in diaries while long contacts have a large reporting probability, and that the durations of contacts tend to be overestimated in the diaries. Moreover, measured contacts corresponding to reported friendship can have durations of any length but all long contacts do correspond to a reported friendship. On the contrary, online links that are not also reported in the friendship survey correspond to short face-to-face contacts, highlighting the difference of nature between reported friendships and online links. Diaries and surveys suffer moreover from a low sampling rate, as many students did not fill them, showing that the sensor-based platform had a higher acceptability. We also show that, despite the biases of diaries and surveys, the overall structure of the contact network, as quantified by the mixing patterns between classes, is correctly captured by both networks of self-reported contacts and of friendships, and we investigate the correlations between the number of neighbors of individuals in the three networks. Overall, diaries and surveys tend to yield a correct picture of the global structural organization of the contact network, albeit with much less links, and give access to a sort of backbone of the contact network corresponding to the strongest links, i.e., the contacts of longest cumulative durations.
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Emerging Human Infectious Diseases: Anthroponoses, Zoonoses, and Sapronoses

              To the Editor: The source of infection has always been regarded as an utmost factor in epidemiology. Human communicable diseases can be classified according to the source of infection as anthroponoses (when the source is an infectious human; interhuman transfer is typical), zoonoses (the source is an infectious animal; interhuman transfer is uncommon), and sapronoses (the source is an abiotic substrate, nonliving environment; interhuman transfer is exceptional). The source of infection is often the reservoir or, in ecologic terms, the habitat where the etiologic agent of the disease normally thrives, grows, and replicates. A characteristic feature of most zoonoses and sapronoses is that once transmitted to humans, the epidemic chain is usually aborted, but the clinical course might be sometimes quite severe, even fatal. An ecologic rule specifies that an obligatory parasite should not kill its host to benefit from the adapted long-term symbiosis, whereas an occasionally attacked alien host, such as a human, might be subjected to a severe disease or even killed rapidly by the parasite because no evolutionary adaptation to that host exists ( 1 ). In this letter, only microbial infections are discussed; metazoan invasion and infestations have been omitted. Anthroponoses (Greek “anthrópos” = man, “nosos” = disease) are diseases transmissible from human to human. Examples include rubella, smallpox, diphtheria, gonorrhea, ringworm (Trichophyton rubrum), and trichomoniasis. Zoonoses (Greek “zoon” = animal) are diseases transmissible from living animals to humans ( 2 ). These diseases were formerly called anthropozoonoses, and the diseases transmissible from humans to animals were called zooanthroponoses. Unfortunately, many scientists used these terms in the reverse sense or indiscriminately, and an expert committee decided to abandon these two terms and recommended “zoonoses” as “diseases and infections which are naturally transmitted between vertebrate animals and man” ( 3 ). A limited number of zoonotic agents can cause extensive outbreaks; many zoonoses, however, attract the public’s attention because of the high death rate associated with the infections. In addition, zoonoses are sometimes contagious for hospital personnel (e.g., hemorrhagic fevers). Zoonotic diseases can be classified according to the ecosystem in which they circulate. The classification is either synanthropic zoonoses, with an urban (domestic) cycle in which the source of infection are domestic and synanthropic animals (e.g., urban rabies, cat scratch disease, and zoonotic ringworm) or exoanthropic zoonoses, with a sylvatic (feral and wild) cycle in natural foci ( 4 ) outside human habitats (e.g., arboviroses, wildlife rabies, Lyme disease, and tularemia). However, some zoonoses can circulate in both urban and natural cycles (e.g., yellow fever and Chagas disease). A number of zoonotic agents are arthropod-borne ( 5 ); others are transmitted by direct contact, alimentary (foodborne and waterborne), or aerogenic (airborne) routes; and some are rodent-borne. Sapronoses (Greek “sapros” = decaying; “sapron” means in ecology a decaying organic substrate) are human diseases transmissible from abiotic environment (soil, water, decaying plants, or animal corpses, excreta, and other substrata). The ability of the agent to grow saprophytically and replicate in these substrata (i.e., not only to survive or contaminate them secondarily) are the most important characteristics of a sapronotic microbe. Sapronotic agents thus carry on two diverse ways of life: saprophytic (in an abiotic substrate at ambient temperature) and parasitic (pathogenic, at the temperature of a homeotherm vertebrate host). Typical sapronoses are visceral mycoses caused by dimorphic fungi (e.g., coccidioidomycosis and histoplasmosis), “monomorphic” fungi (e.g., aspergillosis and cryptococcosis), certain superficial mycoses (Microsporum gypseum), some bacterial diseases (e.g., legionellosis), and protozoan (e.g., primary amebic meningoencephalitis). Intracellular parasites of animals (viruses, rickettsiae, and chlamydiae) cannot be sapronotic agents. The term “sapronosis” was introduced in epidemiology as a useful concept ( 6 – 8 ). For these diseases the expert committee applied the term “sapro-zoonoses,” defined as “having both a vertebrate host and a nonanimal developmental site or reservoir (organic matter, soil, and plants)” ( 3 , 9 ). However, the term sapronoses is more appropriate because animals are not the source of infection for humans. While anthroponoses and zoonoses are usually the domains for professional activities of human and veterinary microbiologists, respectively, sapronoses may be the domain for environmental microbiologists. The underdiagnosis rate for sapronoses is probably higher than that for anthroponoses and zoonoses, and an increase should be expected in both incidence and number of sapronoses. Legionellosis, Pontiac fever, nontuberculous mycobacterioses, and primary amebic meningoencephalitis are a few sapronoses that have emerged in the past decade. In addition, the number of opportunistic infections in immunosuppressed patients has grown markedly; many of these diseases and some nosocomial infections are, in fact, also sapronoses. As with any classification, grouping human diseases in epidemiologic categories according to the source of infection has certain pitfalls. Some arthropod-borne diseases (urban yellow fever, dengue, epidemic typhus, tickborne relapsing fever, epidemic relapsing fever, and malaria) might be regarded as anthroponoses rather than zoonoses because the donor of the infectious blood for the vector is an infected human and not a vertebrate animal. However, the human infection is caused by an (invertebrate) animal in which the agent replicates, and the term zoonoses is preferred. HIV is of simian origin with a sylvatic cycling among wild primates and accidental infection of humans who hunted or ate them; the human disease (AIDS) might thus have been regarded as a zoonosis in the very first phase but later has spread in the human population as a typical anthroponosis and caused the present pandemic. Similarly, pandemic strains of influenza developed through an antigenic shift from avian influenza A viruses. For some etiologic agents or their genotypes, both animals and humans are concurrent reservoirs (hepatitis virus E, Norwalk-like calicivirus, enteropathogenic Escherichia coli, Pneumocystis, Cryptosporidium, Giardia, and Cyclospora); these diseases might conditionally be called anthropozoonoses. Other difficulties can occur with classifying diseases caused by sporulating bacteria (Clostridium and Bacillus): Their infective spores survive in the soil or in other substrata for very long periods, though they are usually produced after a vegetative growth in the abiotic environment, which can include animal carcasses. These diseases should therefore be called sapronoses. For some other etiologic agents, both animals and abiotic environment can be the reservoir (Listeria, Erysipelothrix, Yersinia pseudotuberculosis, Burkholderia pseudomallei, and Rhodococcus equi), and the diseases might be, in fact, called saprozoonosis (not sensu 9 ) in that their source can be either an animal or an abiotic substrate. For a concise list of anthropo-, zoo-, and sapronoses, see the Appendix. Supplementary Material Appendix Important Anthroponoses, Zoonoses, and Sapronoses

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                Journal
                Software: Practice and Experience
                Softw Pract Exp
                Wiley
                0038-0644
                1097-024X
                January 2025
                July 27 2024
                January 2025
                : 55
                : 1
                : 133-154
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Department of Information Technology National Institute of Technology, Srinagar Srinagar India
                [2 ] Department of Electrical and Instrumentation Engineering Thapar Institute of Engineering and Technology Patiala India
                [3 ] Department of Computer Science and Engineering Thapar Institute of Engineering and Technology Patiala Punjab India
                [4 ] Department of Computer Science and Engineering Amity School of Engineering and Technology, Amity University Bengaluru India
                [5 ] Department of Information Technology National Institute of Technology, Jalandhar Jalandhar India
                [6 ] School of Electronic Engineering and Computer Science Queen Mary University of London London UK
                Article
                10.1002/spe.3366
                b9dca689-3336-44e4-be95-4dcb85b57a07
                © 2025

                http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                Related Documents Log