SIGMA Animal Disease Data Model: A comprehensive approach for the collection of standardised data on animal diseases

European Food Safety Authority (EFSA); Gabriele Zancanaro; Sotiria Eleni Antoniou; Marta Bedriova; Frank Boelaert; José Gonzales Rojas; Mario Monguidi; Helen Roberts; Sören Saxmose Nielsen; Hans‐Herman Thulke

doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2019.5556

. 2019 Jan 21;17(1):e05556. doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2019.5556

SIGMA Animal Disease Data Model

A comprehensive approach for the collection of standardised data on animal diseases

European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), Gabriele Zancanaro, Sotiria Eleni Antoniou, Marta Bedriova, Frank Boelaert, José Gonzales Rojas, Mario Monguidi, Helen Roberts, Sören Saxmose Nielsen, Hans‐Herman Thulke

PMCID: PMC7009180 PMID: 32626101

Abstract

The European Commission is routinely asking EFSA for scientific and technical support in the epidemiological analysis of animal disease outbreaks (i.e. African swine fever, lumpy skin disease and avian influenza) and to report or assess surveillance data (i.e. Echinococcus multilocularis and avian influenza). For this purpose, EFSA has over the last years carried out several data collections and gathered specific information on outbreaks, surveillance activities and concerned animal populations (i.e. poultry, domestic pigs, cattle and wildlife such as wild boar). EFSA aims to work together closely with Member States in order to (i) reduce the Member States’ manual input of the data to be submitted to EFSA; (ii) avoid double reporting to EFSA; (iii) provide the Member States with tools to produce automatically their own draft national reports on animal health and surveillance in a protected environment to ensure data protection; (iv) increase the quality of the data received from the Member States; and (v) shorten the time to retrieve up‐to‐date data, relevant for risk assessment purposes. With this purpose, EFSA launched a project called SIGMA. It is important to highlight that the SIGMA – Animal Disease Data Model (σ‐ADM) focuses on data which are known to be already collected by several Member States under different legal frameworks and for different purposes. The version presented in this report, will be subject to modifications and updates derived from the feedback during the implementation phase.

Keywords: SIGMA, data model, data collection, standardisation, population, surveillance

1. Background

The European Commission is routinely asking the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) for scientific and technical support in the epidemiological analysis of animal disease outbreaks (i.e. African swine fever (ASF), lumpy skin disease (LSD) and avian influenza (AI)) and to report or assess surveillance data (i.e. Echinococcus multilocularis (EM) and AI). For this purpose, EFSA has over the last years carried out several data collections and gathered specific information on outbreaks, surveillance activities and concerned animal populations (i.e. poultry, domestic pigs, cattle and wildlife such as wild boar). These mandated undertakings related to specific animal diseases can be considered ‘ad hoc animal health data collections’. Data collections on animal populations are also implemented in relation to the EFSA–ECDC zoonoses summary report (EFSA and ECDC, 2017) and by EUROSTAT, but the resolution of the data is often not sufficiently detailed to be used in analytical epidemiology and risk assessments. In addition, EFSA is currently using ad hoc data models specifically tailored to a single disease, with a consequent lack of harmonisation across the different data collection processes and with the zoonoses data model (EFSA, 2017).

Taking into account the experience gained by EFSA in the field of the animal disease data collection over the last decade and considering: (i) the increasing demand of data‐driven scientific advice to the risk managers to face animal health threatens and, on the other hand, (ii) the steady progress made by information technology, EFSA decided to initiate a process of harmonisation across the different animal health data collection activities, including zoonotic agents, linked to outbreaks and monitoring/surveillance.

EFSA aims to work together closely with Member States on the technical aspects of ‘ad hoc animal health data collections’, in particular to:

reduce the Member States’ manual input of the data to be submitted to EFSA;
avoid double reporting to EFSA;
provide the Member States with tools to produce automatically their own draft national reports on animal health and surveillance in a protected environment to ensure data protection;
increase the quality of the data received from the Member States;
shorten the time to retrieve up‐to‐date data, relevant for risk assessment purposes.

With this purpose, EFSA launched a project called SIGMA. This report provides a brief outline of the entire project and describes the details on a unique and harmonised Animal Disease Data Model (σ‐ADM) and the possible steps leading to its adoption.

It is important to highlight that the σ‐ADM focuses on data which are known to be already collected by several Member States under different legal frameworks and for different purposes. The version presented in this report, will be subject to modifications and updates derived from the feedback during the implementation phase.

2. The SIGMA project in a nutshell

The SIGMA project originates from an internal critical assessment of the current practices to collect data on animal population and animal diseases and has the purpose of optimising the entire process.

As a preliminary step, EFSA performed an internal technical analysis to identify all limitations related to the ongoing data collections. The main problems were: (i) each mandate (i.e. a formal request for support to EFSA by the European Commission) usually entails the design of an ad hoc data model making it unique and only partially compatible with those designed for other mandates; (ii) the ad hoc data models are designed to collect information about ongoing outbreaks, resulting in Member States (MSs) assigning extra resources to fill in these data models, at a time when they should be focusing on disease control focus on disease control; (iii) despite the considerable effort put in the past years to harmonise the definitions across the European Union (EU) MSs, there are still unavoidable differences due to many different factors, which make the data analysis a complicated task and require heavy assumptions.

Nowadays, information technology (IT) offers solutions that were not available a few years ago. In addition, the majority of the data (related to outbreaks, surveillance activities, laboratory analysis and animal populations) that EFSA needs to produce sound scientific outputs are in most cases already stored at country level and shared with EFSA upon request. Therefore, it is a matter of gathering/collating, with suitable agreement, the existing data (properly anonymised), standardise them and safely store them in the EFSA Scientific Data Warehouse (hereinafter also referred as S‐DWH)1 using the tools made available by the current technology.

For illustrative purposes, Figure 1 shows the optimal and final setting of the process of data collection/collation and reporting and how MSs could contribute to and benefit from the SIGMA project. Note that SIGMA will deal with data already submitted to EFSA but using different channels and aggregated in many different ways according to the topic and the purpose.

Data flow from the different data providers (public institutions and MSs) to the EFSA Scientific Data Warehouse

**Yellow spots**: National Data Sources; **CDCP**: Country Data Collection Point; **ADNS**: Animal Disease Notification System; **Keyboard icon**: manual input; **Robot icon**: automated process; **Web Tools**: web applications designed to produce standard reports, including the ones required by the European Commission to the Member States (MSs); **Purple arrow** ‘Alternative’: transmission of the reports that the European Commission requires from the MSs without using the tools made available by EFSA.

The outbreak/disease notification data will still have to be submitted manually into the Animal Disease Notification System (ADNS), as currently done, following the relevant legislation in force. However, the aim is to connect the ADNS and the S‐DWH, so that the MSs will be requested to provide EFSA solely with the additional epidemiological information. These additional epidemiological data will be collected by means of the EFSA Data Collection Framework (hereinafter, DCF) and its integrated controlled terminology and validation rules. As these epidemiological data are essential to estimate important parameters (e.g. prevalence, occurrence of disease) and to correctly interpret information originating from risk‐based sampling designs (e.g. sampling strategy, geographical allocation of the samples, etc.), the SIGMA project, with the help of the awarded consortium, aims at centralising the data flow towards a unique Country Data Collection Point (CDCP, as an ideal set up and in agreement with the MS). Once all the relevant information is in the CDCP, they can be standardised against the σ‐ADM by means of dedicated ‘Extract‐Transform‐Load’ (ETL) processes (i.e. the data will be automatically converted from the national data model into the σ‐ADM). At the end of the standardisation process, the information will be ready for provisioning to EFSA. The data upload should be automatically handled by the system taking advantage of the data exchange protocol implemented in DCF in compliance to EFSA Guidance on Data Exchange v2.0. The MS can choose to send data to EFSA automatically (e.g. a periodical submission on a monthly basis) or to send them on an ‘ad hoc basis’. EFSA will therefore receive a set of pre‐standardised data from the MSs and will be able to (i) perform risk assessment at European level using harmonised information and producing highly comparable outputs; and (ii) give the MSs the opportunity of using web applications to analyse their own data and produce any type of report, including the ones foreseen by law. Even in this case, this will not be an obligation: each MS will be able to choose between the EFSA tools and any other way to analyse their data.

Considering the complexity of the project and the ambition of creating a framework that could be used by all MSs, EFSA launched a call asking for support in the technical implementation of the project. The awarded consortium is led by the Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale (IZS) Abruzzo e Molise ‘G. Caporale’ and is in partnership with the Friedrich Loeffler Institut (FLI), the Swedish National Veterinary Institute (SVA), the Bulgarian Food Safety Agency (BFSA) and the Institute of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Sciences, Estonian University of Life Sciences.

The SIGMA consortium will provide technical support to interested MSs:

to improve animal health data flows within the country (ideally, from the national data sources to the CDCP);
to improve animal health data flow from the CDCP to EFSA;
to standardise the MS data based on the σ‐ADM;
to connect (preferably existing) tools for data analysis to the S‐DWH to facilitate harmonised reporting by national and European risk assessment bodies.

It is important to specify that there are no legal obligations behind the project and the decision of taking advantage of this framework is entirely on the single country.

SIGMA has been planned as a three‐year project with three main phases as described in the following sections.

2.1. SIGMA Phase 1

In this first phase, the main goals are:

to design a harmonised data model, the SIGMA Animal Disease Data Model (σ‐ADM) able to gather, from the concerned MSs and from the existing data collection systems, those data essential to address the requests related to the ongoing mandates (ASF, AI, LSD, EM);
to produce a ‘country card’, i.e. a comprehensive overview, at MS level, of the authorities responsible for the collection of the data related to animal health and animal population (at this point in time, considering the ongoing mandates received from the European Commission, poultry, bovines and pigs);
to outline the data flows in place, within each MS and from each MS to EFSA, to highlight potential drawbacks and propose technical solutions to optimise the system;
to provide a list of online tools for the data analysis and for the reporting of disease outbreaks/surveillance activities with the aim to make them available to the MSs to query the S‐DWH, where provided data are stored. Particular attention will be given to those consolidated tools that are already in use:
- –
  the Classical Swine Fever/African Swine Fever (CSF/ASF) wild boar surveillance database2
- –
  EuFMD‐iS model.3 ^, 4

2.2. SIGMA Phase 2

The second phase will be mainly dedicated to the concrete implementation of the framework with the MSs that volunteer to take part in the pilot. This phase will be targeted on those diseases that EFSA has been requested to deal with (AI, ASF and LSD). In detail:

Planning and development of solutions to enhance the data flows;
Data mapping (matching between MS naming conventions and σ‐ADM);
Support the volunteering MSs in designing the ETL processes to select, transform and transmit the standardised relevant national data to the EFSA DWH.

These activities will be performed on outbreak and surveillance data on AI, ASF and LSD and related animal populations, based on the specific situation of the volunteering MSs.

2.3. SIGMA Phase 3

In the third phase, based on the outcomes from the previous phases, the implementation of the SIGMA approach will be (i) finalised; and (ii) extended to other MSs and/or other diseases (in case of new mandates from the European Commission) and/or other animal population data that were not included in Phase 2. In addition, the selected web tools will be connected to the DWH and made freely available to the MSs providing the data.

In detail:

ETL processes: implementation of the ETL processes in the volunteering MSs;
Analytical interactive online tools: connection of relevant online tools to EFSA's DWH to support AI, ASF, LSD disease outbreak analysis and reporting;
Analytical interactive online tools: connection of relevant online tools to EFSA's DWH to support Avian Influenza Surveillance and Echinococcus multilocularis surveillance analysis and reporting.

3. The SIGMA Animal Disease Data Model (σ‐ADM)

The first milestone of Phase 1 of the SIGMA project is about the creation of a comprehensive data model that is able to encompass different needs related to animal disease risk assessment. The steps followed to achieve the σ‐ADM are described in the following points (Figure 2).

The first step towards the harmonisation of the data collection was to analyse and summarise the risk assessment requests from the risk managers, i.e. European Commission (see Section 5.1, Appendices D and E);
Once the risk assessment questions were retrieved, they were grouped into categories, each characterised by a common possible statistical approach. The outcome of this step was a set of Envisaged analysis (i.e. a set of hypothetical statistical approaches that could address the identified risk assessment requests), essential to identify the data needs (see point 3 and Section 5.2);
As each statistical approach needs specific input data, the Preliminary Plan of Analysis played a crucial role to identify and define exactly and in a concrete way the type of data needed (see Section 5.3);
The data need was then formalised in a data model: the SIGMA Animal Disease Data Model (σ ‐ADM, see Section 5.4);
The σ ‐ADM was then tested against all the ongoing EFSA data collection to make sure that the experience gained over the last years was well integrated and the σ‐ADM was comprehensive enough to encompass all types of risk assessment needs (see Section 7).

Sources of information in the process generating the SIGMA‐Animal Disease Data Model (σ‐ADM)

The first version of the model was then circulated among the members of the Animal Health Network (see also the EFSA event report ‘SIGMA A comprehensive animal disease data collection approach’5) and of the Animal Health and Welfare Panel to check its compatibility with all possible scenarios. See Section 4 for more information about the features of the σ‐ADM.

The final goal was to have in the EFSA DWH a set of European data fully harmonised and ready to be used:

by EFSA to run the statistical analysis envisaged in the Preliminary Plan of Analysis and address the requests from the Risk Managers
by the MSs to create their draft country reports to be submitted to the relevant institutions as laid down in the relevant legislation in force (e.g. Commission Regulation (EU) No 1152/2011 on Echinococcus multilocularis)

The objective of this scientific report is to describe the five steps of the SIGMA harmonisation process, up to the development of the SIGMA Animal Data Model on animal diseases (σ‐ADM).

It is important to note that the data model resulting from this exercise will be tailored to fit the animal diseases for which EFSA has an ongoing mandate, i.e. ASF, LSD, AI, EM, and will be compatible with the data model used for zoonotic diseases included in the EFSA annual report (EFSA and ECDC, 2017). Diseases, other than those for which EFSA has an ongoing mandate, will only be included in the σ‐ADM if EFSA would receive a specific mandate to provide the risk managers with scientific information on those diseases.

The development of this scientific report is linked to the strategic objectives to widen EFSA's evidence base and optimise access to its data, build the EU's scientific assessment capacity and knowledge community and prepare for future risk assessment challenges (EFSA Strategy, 2020, https://www.efsa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/151008.pdf).

4. The σ‐Animal Disease Data Model

The σ‐ADM will be a compromise between the justifiable ambition of addressing the risk assessment questions using the most sophisticated methodology and the pragmatism on the actual data availability across the different data providers (MSs, International Databases), while ensuring there are no additional resource requirements for the MS. The σ‐ADM was designed to be harmonised, compatible, flexible and fit for purpose (see Figure 4).

σ‐ADM features in a glance. The σ‐ADM will result from the harmonisation of the existing and ongoing data collection activities; will be compatible with the existing official international databases; will be flexible enough to gather data generated under different programmes and at different level of resolutions; will be fit for different purposes

With the publication of this scientific report, the σ‐ADM can be considered consolidated in its first release (σ‐ADM v.1). From now onwards EFSA, within the framework of the SIGMA project and with the help of the awarded Consortium, will work together with the MSs to improve and automate, where possible, the data flow from the national databases to the EFSA DWH.

It is important to highlight that, for the MSs that will volunteer to be part of the project, the development of the necessary technical steps will be performed by the SIGMA Consortium and financed by EFSA.

4.1. Harmonised

The first level of harmonisation was conducted internally, at EFSA (internal harmonisation). Starting from the different ongoing ad hoc data collections, EFSA harmonised the way the data were collected using a unique way of classification, based on existing standards where possible, e.g. SSD2 (ANSVSA, 2015) or setting new standards when these did not already exist (see Figure 4).

The second level of harmonisation was conducted across the different data providers in the different Member States (external harmonisation). It should be pointed out that in this case, what SIGMA is proposing is a harmonisation sensu stricto rather than a difficult ‘alignment’. It is well known that each country has its way of naming and classifying at least part of the information generated in the field for many reasons, including history and culture (Figure 3). Each country will have a specific name for ‘pear’. An ‘alignment’ would entail a new name for this fruit to be imposed for the purpose of collecting comparable data. On the contrary, a real harmonisation builds on the existing concepts: it is sufficient to know how that specific fruit is called in the different countries and translate it into any meaningful way, according to the purpose. It is also clear that, assuming a reasonable stability over time of the naming convention within each country, this translation can be completely automated. Therefore, the MSs will not have to modify anything of the way they collect the data. Nonetheless, EFSA will have a set of standardised and therefore highly comparable data available for the analysis.

Harmonisation *sensu stricto*, i.e. building on the existing. There is no need to impose new naming conventions to the data providers. Once it is known how a given object is called (in this case and just for illustrative purposes, a pear) it is possible to translate the information into a standard language

4.2. Flexible

The σ‐ADM is flexible enough to adapt to the different settings in place and/or solutions adopted by the different Member States. It is also able to gather data related to different types of activity in the field, e.g. surveillance, monitoring or outbreak related sampling (see Figure 4).

Particular attention was dedicated to the level of resolution (or scale) of the data. An example is given by the geographical location of the unit of interest, e.g. a farm. The σ‐ADM has been designed to deal with the highest resolution possible, i.e. the geographic coordinates (x–y, latitude–longitude) of an establishment (e.g. a farm, see Table 1). However, a MS can decide not to share the data with ESFA at this level of resolution. In this case, the σ‐ADM offers the option to report the location of the establishment at lower level of geographical resolution (e.g. the NUTS3 regions). From a more technical point of view, in order to fulfil the requirements of the S‐DWH, when a data provider wants to provide data at a lower resolution, the data will be collected in an ‘aggregate‐able’ structure, as shown in Table 2). In this way, it will be possible at least to know the number of farms in each NUTS3 region.

Table 1.

Fictitious sketch of a set of data with two types of variables: anonymised identifier of the farm and HIGH‐RESOLUTION geo‐coordinates (for illustrative purpose)

Dummy identifier farm	x	y
1#uvhbwoh	45.64	7.27
2#vjenvijnb	45.71	7.29
3#ijvbirb	45.34	7.62

Dummy identifier farm	x	y	NUTS3
1#uvhbwoh	–	–	Aosta
2#vjenvijnb	–	–	Aosta
3#ijvbirb	–	–	Torino

Epidemiological question category	AI	ASF	EM	LSD	Total counts
Descriptive statistics	3	3	3	3	12
Effectiveness of biosecurity measures	2			1	3
Effectiveness of countermeasures		3	2	2	7
Effectiveness of protection measures	1	1			2
Effectiveness of sampling schemes	3		5	1	9
Impact assessment			1	1	2
Probability of endemicity				1	1
Probability of introduction	2		1		3
Risk factors analysis	2	2	3	2	9
Spread pattern analysis		1		1	2
Trend analysis		4		2	6

ATTRIBUTE NAME	DATA TYPE	M/O	KEY	DESCRIPTION
ESTABLISHMENT_ID	xs:string(200)	M	PK	Dummy identifier OR official identifier (according to the MS visibility policy) of the Establishment/Holding. The standards may change according to the national relevant legislation
GEO_LOCATION_ID	xs:string(200)	M	FK	Identifier of the record in the GEO_LOCATION table containing the location of the Establishment
ESTABLISHMENT_TYPE	EstablishmentTypeEnum	M		Type of Establishment, characterised by a specific aim and by a specific epidemiological role

ATTRIBUTE NAME	DATA TYPE	M/O	KEY	DESCRIPTION
SUB_UNIT_ID	xs:string(200)	M	PK	Dummy identifier OR official identifier (according to the MS visibility policy) of the sub‐unit. The standards may change according to the relevant national legislation
SUB_UNIT_UPDATEY	xs:int(4)	M		Year – Date at which the information was generated (last update)
SUB_UNIT_UPDATEM	xs:int(2)	M		Month – Date at which the information was generated (last update)
SUB_UNIT_UPDATED	xs:int(2)	M		Day – Date at which the information was generated (last update)
ESTABLISHMENT_ID	xs:string(200)	M	FK	Dummy identifier OR official identifier (according to the MS visibility policy) of the Establishment to which the Sub_unit belongs
GEO_LOCATION_ID	xs:string(200)	M		Identifier of the record in the GEO_LOCATION table containing the location of the Sub_unit
SPECIES	SpeciesEnum	M		The common name, the genus, the species and the breed of the sub‐unit of concern. This is particularly relevant in the cases in which the single animals do not have an animal id
PRODUCTION_TYPE	ProductionTypeEnum	M		Type of final product of the Establishment OR aim for which the animals are kept and/or bred
CAPACITY	xs:integer(6)	M		The capacity of the establishment, i.e. the permitted maximum number of animals that the establishment can host. For some species, it can be, as an example, number of cubicles or pen places
ACTUAL_NUMBER	xs:integer(6)	M		Number of animals at the date the information was generated (last update)

ATTRIBUTE NAME	DATA TYPE	M/O	KEY	DESCRIPTION
KEPT_ANIMAL_ID	xs:string(200)	M	PK	Dummy identifier OR official identifier (according to the MS visibility policy) of the individual kept animal (for the relevant species). The standards may change according to the relevant legislation. [Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/949, art. 2]
KEPT_ANIMAL_UPDATEY	xs:int(4)	M		Year – Date at which the information was generated (last update)
KEPT_ANIMAL_UPDATEM	xs:int(4)	M		Month – Date at which the information was generated (last update)
KEPT_ANIMAL_UPDATED	xs:int(4)	M		Day – Date at which the information was generated (last update)
ESTABLISHMENT_ID	xs:string(200)	M	FK	Dummy identifier OR official identifier (according to the MS visibility policy) of the Establishment to which the animal belongs
SUB_UNIT_ID	xs:string(200)	M	FK	Dummy identifier OR official identifier (according to the MS visibility policy) of the sub‐unit to which the animal belongs
SPECIES	SpeciesEnum (only mammals)	M		The common name, the genus, the species and the breed of the sub‐unit of concern. This is particularly relevant in the cases in which the single animals do not have an animal id
PRODUCTION_TYPE	ProductionTypeEnum (only related to mammals)	M		Type of final product of the Establishment OR aim for which the animals are kept and/or bred
SEX	GenderEnum	M		Sex of the kept animal
BIRTH_Y	xs:int(4)	O		Year – Date of birth of the kept animal
BIRTH_M	xs:int(2)	O		Month – Date of birth of the kept animal
BIRTH_D	xs:int(2)	O		Day – Date of birth of the kept animal
BIRTH_ESTABLISHMENT_ID	xs:string(200)	O		Dummy identifier OR official identifier (according to the MS visibility policy) of the Establishment where the kept animal was born. The standards may change according to the relevant legislation
BIRTH_SUB_UNIT_ID	xs:string(200)	O		Dummy identifier OR official identifier (according to the MS visibility policy) of the Sub_unit where the kept animal was born. The standards may change according to the relevant legislation
BIRTH_COUNTRY	xs:string(2)	O		ISO code of the country where the kept animal was born
MOTHER_ANIMAL_ID	xs:string(200)	O		Dummy identifier OR official identifier (according to the MS visibility policy) of the mother of the individual kept animal (for the relevant species). The standards may change according to the relevant legislation. This attribute is logically a link referring the same KEPT_ANIMAL table. As such is should be captured as FK, but since data of the referred animal might not be contained in the same table (i.e. animal died or moved in a different country prior to any data submission) the constraint is not strictly implemented

ATTRIBUTE NAME	DATA TYPE	M/O	KEY	DESCRIPTION
GEO_LOCATION_ID	xs:string(200)	M	PK	Identifier of the geographical location
COORD_PRECISION	CoordPrecisionEnum	O		Precision of the provided coordinates
X_COORD	xs:decimal	O		Longitude (degrees) E/W
Y_COORD	xs:decimal	O		Latitude (degrees) N/S
ADDRESS	xs:string(200)	O		Address of the located entity
ZIP_CODE	xs:string(10)	O		ZIP code of the located entity
MUNICIPALITY	xs:string(200)	O		Municipality of the located entity
NUTS3	NutsEnum	M		NUTS code level 3 of the located entity

ATTRIBUTE NAME	DATA TYPE	M/O	KEY	DESCRIPTION
DISEASE_DETECTION_ID	xs:string(200)	M	PK	It is the outbreak/disease detection number as registered within the Country and reported to the Commission (e.g. in ADNS)
GEO_LOCATION_ID	xs:string(200)	M		Identifier of the record in the GEO_LOCATION table containing the location of the disease detection
DISEASE	DiseaseEnum	M		Disease to be notified
SPECIES	SpeciesEnum	M		The common name, the genus, the species and the breed of the sub‐unit of concern. This is particularly relevant in the cases in which the single animals do not have an animal id
PRODUCTION_TYPE	ProductionTypeEnum	M		Type of final product of the Establishment OR aim for which the animals are kept and/or bred
OUTBREAK_TYPE	OutbreakTypeEnum	M		The type of outbreak (primary or secondary)
SUSPICION_DATEY	xs:int(4)	M		Year – Date of suspicion of outbreak
SUSPICION_DATEM	xs:int(2)	M		Month – Date of suspicion of outbreak
SUSPICION_DATED	xs:int(2)	M		Day – Date of suspicion of outbreak
CONFIRMATION_DATEY	xs:int(4)	M		Year – Date of confirmation of outbreak
CONFIRMATION_DATEM	xs:int(2)	M		Month – Date of confirmation of outbreak
CONFIRMATION_DATED	xs:int(2)	M		Day – Date of confirmation of outbreak
TYPE_SUBTYPE	xs:string(200)	O		Comma separated of list disease type/subtype code
NR_SUSCEPTIBLE	xs:int(4)	O		Number of total susceptible animal present at farm
NR_AFFECTED	xs:int(4)	O		Number of affected animals (clinically affected or positive at diagnostic test) at confirmation date
NR_DEAD	xs:int(4)	O		Number of dead animals at confirmation date
NR_KILLED	xs:int(4)	O		Number of animals killed at confirmation date
NR_DESTROYED	xs:int(4)	O		Number of carcases destroyed at confirmation date

ENUMERATION	VALUE	DESCRIPTION
EstablishmentTypeEnum	Quarantine premises	Establishment where the animals are kept in isolation with no direct or indirect contact with animals outside this epidemiological unit, for the purpose of ensuring that there is no spread of one or more specified diseases while the animals in isolation are undergoing observation for a specified length of time and, if appropriate, testing and treatment. [based on Regulation (EU) 2016/429 (AHL), art. 4(38)]
EstablishmentTypeEnum	Assembly centre	Establishment, approved by the competent authority, where kept terrestrial animals are assembled from more than one establishment for a period shorter than the required residency period for the species of animals concerned, for NATIONAL and INTERNATIONAL movements
EstablishmentTypeEnum	Market	Establishment, registered by the competent authority, where kept terrestrial animals are assembled from more than one establishment for a period shorter than the required residency period for the species of animals concerned, for NATIONAL movements
EstablishmentTypeEnum	Exhibition	Permanent establishments where animals of domestic or wild species are kept for exhibition to the public for 7 or more consecutive days a year (e.g. zoos, petting centres), with the exception of circuses and pet shops.
EstablishmentTypeEnum	Show	Temporary events where animals of domestic or wild species are brought together for exhibition to the public for less than 7 consecutive days a year
EstablishmentTypeEnum	Farm	Establishment where the animals are kept by humans, since birth OR for a rearing/production period OR for the required residency period for the species of animals concerned, for commercial purposes, i.e. to breed and/or rear and/or sell animals and/or products of animal origin. Hatcheries are excluded
EstablishmentTypeEnum	Genetic centre	Establishment where the animals (bovines, equines, swine, sheep, goats) are kept by humans, for the collection of germinal products.
EstablishmentTypeEnum	Hatchery	An establishment which incubates and hatches eggs and supplies day‐old chicks (art 2, Council Directive 2009/158/EC of 30 November 2009 on animal health conditions governing intra‐community trade in, and imports from third countries of, poultry and hatching eggs)
EstablishmentTypeEnum	Slaughtering centre	Establishment used for slaughtering and dressing animals, the meat of which is intended for human consumption OR establishment in which game and game meat obtained after hunting are prepared for placing on the market. Stalls, pens, covered areas or fields associated with or part of slaughterhouse operations are included
EstablishmentTypeEnum	Health & Research centres	Any permanent, geographically limited and approved establishment where one or more species of animal are habitually: (i) kept for fundamental or applied scientific research; or (ii) bred for the purposes of such research (iii) kept to undergo veterinary medicine practices. For example, research laboratories, veterinary hospitals, etc.
EstablishmentTypeEnum	Pasture/Co‐pasture	2000/115 refers to land used for (common) grazing which is under the control of a local authority
ProductionTypeEnum	Germinal products	‘Germinal products’ means: (i) semen, oocytes and embryos intended for artificial reproduction; (ii) hatching eggs [Regulation (EU) 2016/429 (AHL), art. 4(27)]
ProductionTypeEnum	Breeders	‘Breeders’ are animals of high genetic value kept for reproduction purposes. For example, grandparents and parent flocks (poultry); pedigree dams and sires; etc.
ProductionTypeEnum	Meat/Fattening	Rearing or keeping in captivity animals for the primary purpose of producing meat
ProductionTypeEnum	Milk	Rearing or keeping in captivity animals for the primary purpose of producing raw milk, i.e. milk produced by the secretion of the mammary gland of farmed animals that has not been heated to more than 40°C or undergone any treatment that has an equivalent effect.
ProductionTypeEnum	Eggs	Rearing or keeping in captivity animals for the primary purpose of producing eggs, where ‘Eggs’ means unfertilised eggs in shell – e.g broken, fresh table or cooked eggs – that are produced by farmed birds and are fit for direct human consumption or for the preparation of egg products AND technical purposes (cosmetics)
ProductionTypeEnum	SPF	Animals or eggs which are used for diagnostic procedures in laboratories, for the production and testing of vaccines and for research and pharmaceutical purposes
ProductionTypeEnum	Foie‐gras	Rearing or keeping in captivity animals for the production of foie gras, where foie‐gras means the livers of geese, or of ducks of the species Cairina muschata or Cairina muschata x Anas platyrhynchos which have been fed in such a way as to produce hepatic fatty cellular hypertrophy
ProductionTypeEnum	Game	Animals kept in captivity for restocking supplies of game animals
SpeciesEnum	Mammals	Mammals (and all subcategories)
SpeciesEnum	Birds	Birds (and all subcategories)
GenderEnum	Female	Female
GenderEnum	Male	Male
GenderEnum	Mixed females and males	Mixed females and males
CoordPrecisionEnum	Centroid admin	Centroid of an administrative area (region or country)
CoordPrecisionEnum	Centroid generic	Coordinates indicating the centroid of a non‐administrative area
CoordPrecisionEnum	Exact	Exact location XY coordinates of trap or point of sample
CoordPrecisionEnum	Estimated	Near location XY coordinates based on village, town or identifiable geographical feature (national park, lake, river, etc.)
CoordPrecisionEnum	Unknown	Location Unknown
NutsEnum	– Many –	NUTS code, according to EUROSTAT. Information should be provided at least at NUTS level 3
DiseaseEnum	HPAI poultry	HPAI poultry
DiseaseEnum	HPAI captive birds	HPAI captive birds
DiseaseEnum	HPAI wild birds	HPAI wild birds
DiseaseEnum	LPAI poultry	LPAI poultry
DiseaseEnum	LPAI captive birds	LPAI captive birds
DiseaseEnum	LPAI wild birds	LPAI wild birds
DiseaseEnum	LSD	LSD
DiseaseEnum	ASF	ASF
DiseaseEnum	Echinococcus multilocularis	Echinococcus multilocularis
OutbreakTypeEnum	Primary	Primary
OutbreakTypeEnum	Secondary	Secondary

E	ATTRIBUTE NAME	DATA TYPE	M/O	ENUM VALUES	DESCRIPTION
E	ESTABLISHMENT_ID	xs:string(200)	M		Dummy identifier OR official identifier (according to the MS visibility policy) of the Establishment/Holding. The standards may change according to the national relevant legislation
E	ESTABLISHMENT_TYPE	EstablishmentTypeEnum	M	Quarantine premises Assembly centre Market Exhibition Show Farm Genetic centre Hatchery Slaughtering Centre Health & Research centres Pasture/Co‐pasture	Type of Establishment, characterised by a specific aim and by a specific epidemiological role
EGL	ESTABLISHMENT_COORD_PRECISION	CoordPrecisionEnum	O	Centroid admin Centroid generic Exact Estimated Unknown	Precision of the provided coordinates
EGL	ESTABLISHMENT_X_COORD	xs:decimal	O		Longitude (degrees) E/W
EGL	ESTABLISHMENT_Y_COORD	xs:decimal	O		Latitude (degrees) N/S
EGL	ESTABLISHMENT_ADDRESS	xs:string(200)	O		Address of the located entity
EGL	ESTABLISHMENT_ZIP_CODE	xs:string(10)	O		ZIP code of the located entity
EGL	ESTABLISHMENT_MUNICIPALITY	xs:string(200)	O		Municipality of the located entity
EGL	ESTABLISHMENT_NUTS3	NutsEnum	M	NUTS code, according to EUROSTAT. Information should be provided at least at NUTS level 3	NUTS code level 3 of the located entity
SU	SUB_UNIT_ID	xs:string(200)	M		Dummy identifier OR official identifier (according to the MS visibility policy) of the sub‐unit. The standards may change according to the relevant national legislation
SU	SUB_UNIT_UPDATEY	xs:int(4)	M		Year – Date at which the information was generated (last update)
SU	SUB_UNIT_UPDATEM	xs:int(2)	M		Month – Date at which the information was generated (last update)
SU	SUB_UNIT_UPDATED	xs:int(2)	M		Day – Date at which the information was generated (last update)
SU	SPECIES	SpeciesEnum	M	Mammals (and all subcategories) Birds (and all subcategories)	The common name, the genus, the species and the breed of the sub‐unit of concern. This is particularly relevant in the cases in which the single animals do not have an animal id
SU	PRODUCTION_TYPE	ProductionTypeEnum	M	Germinal products Breeders Meat/Fattening Milk Egg SPF Foie‐gras Game	Type of final product of the Establishment OR aim for which the animals are kept and/or bred
SU	CAPACITY	xs:integer(6)	M		The capacity of the establishment, i.e. the permitted maximum number of animals that the establishment can host. For some species, it can be, as an example, number of cubicles or pen places
SU	ACTUAL_NUMBER	xs:integer(6)	M		Number of animals at the date the information was generated (last update)
SUGL	SUB_UNIT_COORD_PRECISION	CoordPrecisionEnum	O	Centroid admin Centroid generic Exact Estimated Unknown	Precision of the provided coordinates
SUGL	SUB_UNIT_X_COORD	xs:decimal	O		Longitude (degrees) E/W
SUGL	SUB_UNIT_Y_COORD	xs:decimal	O		Latitude (degrees) N/S
SUGL	SUB_UNIT_ADDRESS	xs:string(200)	O		Address of the located entity
SUGL	SUB_UNIT_ZIP_CODE	xs:string(10)	O		ZIP code of the located entity
SUGL	SUB_UNIT_MUNICIPALITY	xs:string(200)	O		Municipality of the located entity
SUGL	SUB_UNIT_NUTS3	NutsEnum	M	NUTS code, according to EUROSTAT. Information should be provided at least at NUTS level 3	NUTS code level 3 of the located entity
KA	KEPT_ANIMAL_ID	xs:string(200)	O		Dummy identifier OR official identifier (according to the MS visibility policy) of the individual kept animal (for the relevant species). The standards may change according to the relevant legislation. [Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/949, art. 2]
KA	KEPT_ANIMAL_UPDATEY	xs:int(4)	O		Year – Date at which the information was generated (last update)
KA	KEPT_ANIMAL_UPDATEM	xs:int(4)	O		Month – Date at which the information was generated (last update)
KA	KEPT_ANIMAL_UPDATED	xs:int(4)	O		Day – Date at which the information was generated (last update)
KA	SPECIES	SpeciesEnum	O	Mammals (and all subcategories)	The common name, the genus, the species and the breed of the sub‐unit of concern. This is particularly relevant in the cases in which the single animals do not have an animal id
KA	PRODUCTION_TYPE	ProductionTypeEnum	O	Germinal products Breeders Meat/Fattening Milk SPF	Type of final product of the Establishment OR aim for which the animals are kept and/or bred
KA	SEX	GenderEnum	O	Female Male Mixed females and males	Sex of the kept animal
KA	BIRTH_Y	xs:int(4)	O	Male	Year – Date of birth of the kept animal
KA	BIRTH_M	xs:int(2)	O	Mixed females and males	Month – Date of birth of the kept animal
KA	BIRTH_D	xs:int(2)	O		Day – Date of birth of the kept animal
KA	BIRTH_ESTABLISHMENT_ID	xs:string(200)	O		Dummy identifier OR official identifier (according to the MS visibility policy) of the Establishment where the kept animal was born. The standards may change according to the relevant legislation
KA	BIRTH_SUB_UNIT_ID	xs:string(200)	O		Dummy identifier OR official identifier (according to the MS visibility policy) of the Sub_unit where the kept animal was born. The standards may change according to the relevant legislation
KA	BIRTH_COUNTRY	xs:string(2)	O		ISO code of the country where the kept animal was born
KA	MOTHER_ANIMAL_ID	xs:string(200)	O		Dummy identifier OR official identifier (according to the MS visibility policy) of the mother of the individual kept animal (for the relevant species). The standards may change according to the relevant legislation

Def ID#	LEGAL REFERENCE	DEFINITION
1	http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:L:2016:084:FULL%26from=EN, art. 4(27)	‘establishment’ means any premises, structure, or, in the case of open‐air farming, any environment or place, where animals or germinal products are kept, on a temporary or permanent basis, except for: (a) households where pet animals are kept; (b) veterinary practices or clinics
2	http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32010R0206%26from=en, art. 2 (ungulates, Equidae)	‘Holding’ means a farm or other officially supervised agricultural, industrial or commercial undertaking, including zoos, amusement parks and wildlife or hunting reserves where live animals are regularly kept or bred
3	https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32000R1760%26from=EN, art. 2 (bovines)	‘Holding’ means any establishment, construction or, in the case of an open‐air farm, any place situated within the territory of the same Member State, in which animals covered by this Regulation are held, kept or handled
4	http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CONSLEG:1992L0065:20040703:EN:PDF, art 2	Any permanent, geographically limited establishment where one or more species of animal are habitually kept or bred, whether or not for commercial ends, and exclusively for one or more of the following purposes [omissis]
5	https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:31982L0894%26from=EN, art. 2(a)	‘holding’ means any establishment (agricultural or other) situated in the territory of a Member State, in which animals are reared or kept
6	Council Directive 92/119/EEC, art 2(1)	Holding: any establishment (agricultural or other), situated in the territory of a Member State, in which animals are kept or bred

Disease	Mandate	Output number	Question number
AI	M‐2014‐0316	ON‐3941	EFSA‐Q‐2014‐00838
	M‐2015‐0079	EN‐1142	EFSA‐Q‐2016‐00792
		EN‐1282	EFSA‐Q‐2017‐00573
		EN‐1283	EFSA‐Q‐2017‐00574
		EN‐1284	EFSA‐Q‐2017‐00575
		EN‐1285	EFSA‐Q‐2017‐00576
		EN‐1286	EFSA‐Q‐2017‐00577
		EN‐1287	EFSA‐Q‐2017‐00578
		ON‐4687	EFSA‐Q‐2016‐00777
		ON‐4991	EFSA‐Q‐2015‐00214
		ON‐4991	EFSA‐Q‐2016‐00348
	M‐2015‐0240	ON‐4891	EFSA‐Q‐2016‐00599
	M‐2017‐0062	ON‐5018	EFSA‐Q‐2017‐00229
	M‐2017‐0062	ON‐5141	EFSA‐Q‐2017‐00649
ASF	M‐2014‐0057	ON‐3616	EFSA‐Q‐2014‐00149
	M‐2014‐0079	ON‐4795	EFSA‐Q‐2017‐00158
	M‐2014‐0323	EN‐843	EFSA‐Q‐2015‐00401
	M‐2014‐0323	ON‐4163	EFSA‐Q‐2014‐00897
	M‐2016‐0048	EN‐1312	EFSA‐Q‐2017‐00155
		ON‐4732	EFSA‐Q‐2016‐00152
		ON‐5068	EFSA‐Q‐2017‐00154
EM	M‐2012‐0200	EN‐366	EFSA‐Q‐2012‐00746
		ON‐2973	EFSA‐Q‐2012‐00640
		ON‐3465	EFSA‐Q‐2013‐00535
		ON‐3875	EFSA‐Q‐2013‐00536
		ON‐4310	EFSA‐Q‐2013‐00537
		ON‐4649	EFSA‐Q‐2014‐00734
		ON‐5051	EFSA‐Q‐2017‐00403
	M‐2014‐0287	ON‐4035	EFSA‐Q‐2014‐00727
	M‐2014‐0287	ON‐5051	EFSA‐Q‐2017‐00697
	M‐2014‐0288	ON‐4373	EFSA‐Q‐2014‐00728
LSD	M‐2013‐0332	ON‐3986	EFSA‐Q‐2013‐00917
	M‐2016‐0122	ON‐4573	EFSA‐Q‐2016‐00384
	M‐2016‐0170	ON‐4773	EFSA‐Q‐2016‐00542
	M‐2016‐0170	ON‐5176	EFSA‐Q‐2016‐00625

Disease	Keywords	Time span	Mandate	Question number	Subject	Output number
AI	HPAI	1/1/2014–31/12/2017	M‐2015‐0079	EFSA‐Q‐2017‐00576	Procurement: Data analysis and predictive modelling of HPAI H5 and H7 outbreaks in the EU 2005–2015	EN‐1285
AI	HPAI	1/1/2014–31/12/2017	M‐2015‐0079	EFSA‐Q‐2017‐00575	Procurement: Report about HPAI introduction into Europe, HPAI detection in wild birds and HPAI spread between European holdings in the period 2005–2015	EN‐1284
AI	HPAI	1/1/2014–31/12/2017	M‐2015‐0079	EFSA‐Q‐2016‐00792	Procurement: Effect of biosecurity measures and early detection systems, mitigation measures and surveillance strategies on the spread of HPAI and LPAI between farms	EN‐1142
AI	HPAI	1/1/2014–31/12/2017	M‐2015‐0079	EFSA‐Q‐2016‐00348	Art. 29: Scientific opinion on additional issues in relation to EFSA's ongoing mandate on avian influenza (M‐2015‐0079)	ON‐4991
AI	HPAI	1/1/2014–31/12/2017	M‐2015‐0079	EFSA‐Q‐2015‐00214	Art. 29: Scientific opinion on avian influenza (HPAI)	ON‐4991
AI	LPAI	1/1/2014–31/12/2017	M‐2015‐0079	EFSA‐Q‐2017‐00577	Procurement: LPAI detection in wild birds and LPAI spread between European holdings in the period 2005–2015	EN‐1286
AI	LPAI	1/1/2014–31/12/2017	M‐2015‐0079	EFSA‐Q‐2016‐00792	Procurement: Effect of biosecurity measures and early detection systems, mitigation measures and surveillance strategies on the spread of HPAI and LPAI between farms	EN‐1142
AI	Avian influenza	1/1/2014–31/12/2017	M‐2017‐0221	EFSA‐Q‐2017‐00829	Scientific and technical assistance on avian influenza surveillance ‐ Art 31.
AI	Avian influenza	1/1/2014–31/12/2017	M‐2017‐0062	EFSA‐Q‐2017‐00825	Art. 31: Scientific and technical assistance on avian influenza monitoring (Dec–Jan–Feb 2017/2018)
AI	Avian influenza	1/1/2014–31/12/2017	M‐2017‐0062	EFSA‐Q‐2017‐00649	Art. 31: Scientific and technical assistance on avian influenza monitoring (September–October–November 2017)	ON‐5141
AI	Avian influenza	1/1/2014–31/12/2017	M‐2015‐0079	EFSA‐Q‐2017‐00578	Procurement: Mechanisms and risk factors for mutation from low to highly pathogenic avian influenza virus	EN‐1287
AI	Avian influenza	1/1/2014–31/12/2017	M‐2015‐0079	EFSA‐Q‐2017‐00574	Procurement: Narrative overview on wild bird migration in the context of highly pathogenic avian influenza incursion into the European Union	EN‐1283
AI	Avian influenza	1/1/2014–31/12/2017	M‐2015‐0079	EFSA‐Q‐2017‐00573	Risk factors of primary introduction of highly pathogenic and low pathogenic avian influenza virus into European poultry holdings, considering at least material contaminated by wild birds and contact with wild birds	EN‐1282
AI	Avian influenza	1/1/2014–31/12/2017	M‐2017‐0062	EFSA‐Q‐2017‐00229	Art. 31: Scientific and technical assistance on avian influenza monitoring (October 2016–August 2017)	ON‐5018
AI	Avian influenza	1/1/2014–31/12/2017	M‐2015‐0079	EFSA‐Q‐2016‐00777	Urgent reply to and clarifications of terms of reference (ToR)2 of the avian influenza mandate	ON‐4687
AI	Avian influenza	1/1/2014–31/12/2017	M‐2015‐0240	EFSA‐Q‐2016‐00616	Procurement: Data collection on INFECTION WITH LOW PATHOGENIC AVIAN INFLUENZA VIRUS
AI	Avian influenza	1/1/2014–31/12/2017	M‐2015‐0240	EFSA‐Q‐2016‐00599	Art. 29: Scientific Opinion on INFECTION WITH LOW PATHOGENIC AVIAN INFLUENZA VIRUS for the listing and categorisation of animal diseases in the framework of the Animal Health Law	ON‐4891
AI	Avian influenza	1/1/2014–31/12/2017	M‐2015‐0079	EFSA‐Q‐2016‐00372	Workshop on Avian Influenza	EN‐1052
AI	Avian influenza	1/1/2014–31/12/2017	M‐2015‐0079	EFSA‐Q‐2016‐00348	Art. 29: Scientific opinion on additional issues in relation to EFSA's ongoing mandate on avian influenza (M‐2015‐0079)	ON‐4991
AI	Avian influenza	1/1/2014–31/12/2017	M‐2015‐0079	EFSA‐Q‐2015‐00686	Procurement linked to scientific opinion on avian influenza: data collection and spatial models for virus spread in preparation to the mandate on avian influenza (OC/EFSA/ALPHA/2015/01)
AI	Avian influenza	1/1/2014–31/12/2017	M‐2015‐0079	EFSA‐Q‐2015‐00214	Art. 29: Scientific opinion on avian influenza (HPAI)	ON‐4991
AI	Avian influenza	1/1/2014–31/12/2017	M‐2014‐0316	EFSA‐Q‐2014‐00838	Scientific report on Highly pathogenic avian influenza A subtype H5N8	ON‐3941
ASF	ASF	1/1/2014–31/12/2017	M‐2016‐0048	EFSA‐Q‐2017‐00155	Procurement: Simulation‐based investigation of ASF spread and control in wildlife without consideration of human non‐compliance to biosecurity (NP/EFSA/ALPHA/2017/11)	EN‐1312
ASF	ASF	1/1/2014–31/12/2017	M‐2014‐0323	EFSA‐Q‐2015‐00401	Procurement: Alternative control strategies against ASF in wild boar populations (NP‐EFSA‐ALPHA‐2015‐15‐ASF)	EN‐843
ASF	ASF	1/1/2014–31/12/2017	M‐2014‐0323	EFSA‐Q‐2014‐00897	Scientific opinion on African swine fever (ASF)	ON‐4163
ASF	African Swine Fever	1/1/2014–31/12/2017	M‐2017‐0217	EFSA‐Q‐2018‐00053	Art. 31: Scientific and technical assistance on African swine fever
ASF	African Swine Fever	1/1/2014–31/12/2017	M‐2017‐0217	EFSA‐Q‐2017‐00823	Art. 31: Scientific and technical assistance on African swine fever
ASF	African Swine Fever	1/1/2014–31/12/2017	M‐2016‐0048	EFSA‐Q‐2017‐00725	Event report for African Swine Fever workshop	EN‐1342
ASF	African Swine Fever	1/1/2014–31/12/2017	M‐2014‐0079	EFSA‐Q‐2017‐00158	Characterisation of African swine fever virus for scientific opinion on vector‐borne diseases	ON‐4795
ASF	African Swine Fever	1/1/2014–31/12/2017	M‐2016‐0048	EFSA‐Q‐2017‐00154	Art. 31 Technical and scientific assistance on African swine fever (2017)	ON‐5068
ASF	African Swine Fever	1/1/2014–31/12/2017	M‐2016‐0048	EFSA‐Q‐2016‐00152	Art. 31 Technical and scientific assistance on African swine fever (2016)	ON‐4732
ASF	African Swine Fever	1/1/2014–31/12/2017	M‐2014‐0323	EFSA‐Q‐2014‐00897	Scientific opinion on African swine fever (ASF)	ON‐4163
ASF	African Swine Fever	1/1/2014–31/12/2017	M‐2014‐0057	EFSA‐Q‐2014‐00149	Request for urgent scientific and technical assistance on the evaluation of hunting wild boar as a mitigation measure to prevent the introduction of African swine fever from area infected by the disease.	ON‐3616
LSD	LSD	1/1/2014–31/12/2017	M‐2014‐0330	EFSA‐Q‐2016‐00412	Workshop on strengthening regional cooperation in South East Europe and Middle East for prevention and control of Lumpy Skin Disease (LSD)	EN‐1059
LSD	Lumpy skin disease	1/1/2014–31/12/2017	M‐2016‐0170	EFSA‐Q‐2016‐00625	Art. 31 Scientific and technical assistance on Lumpy Skin Disease (report 2018)	ON‐5176
LSD	Lumpy skin disease	1/1/2014–31/12/2017	M‐2016‐0170	EFSA‐Q‐2016‐00542	Art. 31 Scientific and technical assistance on Lumpy Skin Disease (report 2017)	ON‐4773
LSD	Lumpy skin disease	1/1/2014–31/12/2017	M‐2014‐0330	EFSA‐Q‐2016‐00412	Workshop on strengthening regional cooperation in South East Europe and Middle East for prevention and control of Lumpy Skin Disease (LSD)	EN‐1059
LSD	Lumpy skin disease	1/1/2014 ‐ 31/12/2017	M‐2016‐0122	EFSA‐Q‐2016‐00384	Art. 29: Urgent advice on the update of the scientific opinion on lumpy skin disease	ON‐4573
LSD	Lumpy Skin Disease	1/1/2014–31/12/2017	M‐2013‐0332	EFSA‐Q‐2013‐00917	Scientific opinion on lumpy skin disease	ON‐3986
EM	Echinococcus	1/1/2012–31/12/2017	M‐2014‐0287	EFSA‐Q‐2017‐00697	Art. 31: Scientific and technical assistance on Echinococcus multilocularis infection in animals(2017)	ON‐5051

Analysis and approaches	Number of times required	Definition
(Incidence) rate	1	Ratio in which the denominator is the number of animal‐time units at riska Also, a ratio in which the denominator is time. E.g. cases/day, cases/week, etc.
Attack rates	2	It is the risk of becoming infected (case) during a specific period of time, such as the duration of an outbreak. It is calculated by dividing the total number of new cases by the total number of individuals at risk (total population exposed)
Attributable fraction	1	Proportion of disease in exposed individuals that is due to the exposure OR proportion of disease in the exposed group that would be avoided if the exposure were removeda
Attributable risk	1	Risk of disease in the exposed group MINUS the risk of disease in the non‐exposed group (i.e. increased or decreased probability of disease in the exposed groupa
Case fatality rate	1	Proportion of animals with a specific disease that die from it (within a specific time period) It's a risk measure. Used to describe the impact
Count	1	Simple enumeration of the number of cases of disease or number of animals affected with a condition in a given population.
Descriptive risk mapping	1	For aggregated data. Crude risk or risk ratios can be calculated and reported in maps.
Distribution maps	1	Simple geographical representation of a given parameter (e.g. prevalence) or event (e.g. disease notification)a
Freedom from disease	2	It is an approach based on the Binomial distribution, used in areas where the disease or a pathogen is not circulating, for different purposes, e.g. estimation of the confidence on the free status of a given disease, the calculation of the required sample size to demonstrate freedom, etc
Hazard ratio	2	In survival analysis, the hazard ratio is the ratio of the hazard rates corresponding to the conditions described by two levels of an explanatory variable. Hazard ratios have similar interpretations to odds ratios and risk ratiosa
Incidence count	1	Enumeration of new cases in a population during certain timea
Incidence rate	2	Number of new cases of disease in a population per unit of animal‐time during a given time period. Eg. No. cases/No. animal‐daysa
Incidence rate ratio/Incidence density	1	Ratio of the disease frequency (measured as incidence rate) in an exposed group to the Incidence Rate in a non‐expose groupa
Incidence risk/Cumulative incidence	1	Probability that an individual animal will contract or develop a disease in a defined time period. Also referred to as ‘cumulative incidence’a
Incidence times	1	Times at which incident cases occur. Usually measured as the elapsed time since a reference event (e.g. calving)a
Modelling techniques	8	The adaptation of a parametric model to empirical distributions in order to estimate the parameters and operate probabilistic calculations
Odds	1	Ratio in which the numerator is not a subset of the denominator. It can be interpreted as the likelihood that a case would take place. This is the ratio of cases to non‐cases or p/(1 − p)a
Odds ratio	4	Odds of the disease in the exposed group divided by the disease odds in the non‐expose groupa
Population attributable fraction	1	Analogous to Attributable Fraction BUT reflects the effect of the disease in the entire population (rather than in the exposed group)a
Population attributable risk	1	Difference in risk between two groups BUT focus on increase in risk of disease, in the entire population, attributable to the exposurea
Prevalence	1	Proportion or percentage of cases in the population at a specific point in time. Eg. cases/populationa
Proportion	1	Ratio in which the numerator is a subset of the denominatora
R ₀ (Basic reproductive ratio)	1	Average number of secondary cases produced by one infectious individual in completely susceptible population
Regression techniques	1	E.g. Generalised linear models
Relative risk/risk ratio	4	Ratio of the risk of disease in the exposed group to the risk of disease in the non‐expose group. Also referred to as ‘Risk Ratio’a
Secondary attack rates	2	Number of cases MINUS the initial case(s)a It describes the “infectiousness” (or ease of spread) of living agents
Simulation techniques	8	The implementation of virtual (computer) sampling from a parametric or empirical distribution in order to estimate the parameter of interest (a probability or a quantity) and its uncertainty/variability e.g. SIR models. These techniques are normally used for predictive purposes
Smoothing (kernel) methods	1	Techniques used in spatial analysis which convert large sets of points into a density surface
Transmission kernel	1	The transmission kernel describes the risk of transmission as a function of distance between an infectious and a susceptible holding
Transmission rate	1	The number of new cases produced by one infectious individual per unit of time

Def ID#	LEGAL REFERENCE	DEFINITION
1	http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:L:2016:084:FULL%26from=EN , art. 4(49)	‘assembly operation’ means the assembling of kept terrestrial animals from more than one establishment for a period shorter than the required residency period for the species of animals concerned
2	http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CONSLEG:1964L0432:20071113:EN:PDF , art. 2(2)(o) (bovines, swine)	Holdings, collection centres and markets, at which bovine animals or swine originating from different holdings are grouped together to form consignments of animals intended for trade. These assembly centres must be approved for trading purposes and meet the requirements laid down in Article 11
3	https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32003L0050%26from=EN, art. 1(b)10	Premises on which ovine or caprine animals originating from different holdings are grouped together to form consignments of animals intended for intra‐Community trade;
4	http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:31991L0068%26from=en , art. 2(9) (ovine, caprine)	Any place, other than the holding, where ovine or caprine animals are sold, bought and/or assembled or loaded, and which complies with Article 3 (7) of Directive 64/432/EEC and Article 5 (1) (b) (i) of Directive 90/425/EEC for approved markets or assembly centres

Def ID#	LEGAL REFERENCE	DEFINITION
1	http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:31991L0068%26from=en , art. 2(9) (ovine, caprine)	Approved market or assembly centre means any place, other than the holding, where ovine or caprine animals are sold, bought and/or assembled or loaded, and which complies with Article 3 (7) of Directive 64/432/EEC and Article 5 (1) (b) (i) of Directive 90/425/EEC for approved markets or assembly centres
2	http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1990/2628/made (The Welfare of Animals at Markets Order 1990)	Market place or sale‐yard or any other premises or place to which animals are brought from other places and exposed for sale and includes any lairage adjoining a market and used in connection with it and any place adjoining a market used as a parking area by visitors to the market for parking vehicles
3	OIE Terrestrial code ( http://www.oie.int/index.php?id=169%26L=0%26htmfile=glossaire.htm )	MARKET means a place where animals are assembled for the purpose of trade or sale.

Def ID#	LEGAL REFERENCE	DEFINITION
	http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:L:2016:084:FULL%26from=EN , art. 4(5)	‘kept animals’ means animals which are kept by humans, including, in the case of aquatic animals, aquaculture animals;
	http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:L:2016:084:FULL%26from=EN , art. 4(49)	‘assembly operation’ means the assembling of kept terrestrial animals from more than one establishment for a period shorter than the required residency period for the species of animals concerned
	http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:L:2016:084:FULL%26from=EN , art. 4(28)	‘germinal products’ means: (a) semen, oocytes and embryos intended for artificial reproduction; (b) hatching eggs;
	https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32016R1012%26from=EN, art. 2(26)	‘breeding programme’ means a set of systematic actions, including recording, selection, breeding and exchange of breeding animals and their germinal products, designed and implemented to preserve or enhance desired phenotypic and/or genotypic characteristics in the target breeding population
	https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32016R1012%26from=EN, art. 2(2)	‘breed’ means a population of animals sufficiently uniform to be considered to be distinct from other animals of the same species by one or more groups of breeders which have agreed to enter those animals in breeding books with details of their known ascendants for the purpose of reproducing their inherited characteristics by way of reproduction, exchange and selection within the framework of a breeding programme;

Def ID#	LEGAL REFERENCE	DEFINITION
1	http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:02004R0853-20070101%26from=HR , APPENDIX I (1.16)	“Slaughterhouse” means an establishment used for slaughtering and dressing animals, the meat of which is intended for human consumption
2	https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32009R1099%26from=EN , art. 2(c)	“Lairaging” means keeping animals in stalls, pens, covered areas or fields associated with or part of slaughterhouse operations;
3	http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:02004R0853-20070101%26from=HR – Appendix I (1.18)	“Game‐handling establishment” means any establishment in which game and game meat obtained after hunting are prepared for placing on the market
4	OIE Animal Health Code (http://www.oie.int/index.php?id=169%26L=0%26htmfile=glossaire.htm)	LAIRAGE means pens, yards and other holding areas used for accommodating animals in order to give them necessary attention (such as water, feed, rest) before they are moved on or used for specific purposes including slaughter

Def ID#	LEGAL REFERENCE	DEFINITION
1	http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2007:182:0019:0028:EN:PDF , art. 2(g)	‘house’ means a building on a holding where a flock of chickens are kept;
2	http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2007:182:0019:0028:EN:PDF , art. 2(j)	‘flock’ means a group of chickens which are placed in a house of a holding and are present in this house at the same time;
3	[MISSING LEGAL REFERENCE]	‘pen’ [MISSING DEFINITION]
4	Zoonoses manual	‘herd’ means an animal or group of animals kept on a holding as an epidemiological unit (Regulation (EC) No 2160/2003); if more than one herd is kept on a holding, each of these herds shall form a distinct unit and shall have the same health status (Directive 64/432/EEC)
5	http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:L:2016:084:FULL%26from=EN , art. 4(37)	‘compartment’ means an animal subpopulation contained in one or more establishments and, in the case of aquatic animals, in one or more aquaculture establishments, under a common biosecurity management system with a distinct health status with respect to a specific disease or specific diseases subject to appropriate surveillance, disease control and biosecurity measures;
6	http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:L:2016:084:FULL%26from=EN , art. 84	‘epidemiological unit’ means a group of animals with the same likelihood of exposure to a disease agent;

Def ID#	LEGAL REFERENCE	DEFINITION
	http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:L:2016:084:FULL%26from=EN , art. 4(27)	‘germinal products’ means: (i) semen, oocytes and embryos intended for artificial reproduction; (ii) hatching eggs;
	http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CONSLEG:1964L0432:20071113:EN:PDF , art 2(c)	‘animals for breeding or production’ means bovine animals (including the species Bison bison and Bubalus bubalus) and swine other than those referred to in (b), including those intended for breeding, milk or meat production, or draft purposes, shows or exhibition with the exception of animals taking part in cultural and sporting events;
	https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32009L0158%26from=it , art. 2(4)	‘breeding poultry’ means poultry 72 h old or more, intended for the production of hatching eggs;

Def ID#	LEGAL REFERENCE	DEFINITION
	http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:02004R0853-20070101%26from=HR , ANNEX I (4.1)	‘Raw milk’ means milk produced by the secretion of the mammary gland of farmed animals that has not been heated to more than 40°C or undergone any treatment that has an equivalent effect
	http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:02004R0853-20070101%26from=HR , ANNEX I (4.2)	Milk production holding” means an establishment where one or more farmed animals are kept to produce milk with a view to placing it on the market as food

Def ID#	LEGAL REFERENCE	DEFINITION
	http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:02004R0853-20070101%26from=HR, ANNEX I (5.1)	‘Eggs’ means eggs in shell — other than broken, incubated or cooked eggs — that are produced by farmed birds and are fit for direct human consumption or for the preparation of egg products
	https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.2903/j.efsa.2014.3782

Def ID#	LEGAL REFERENCE	DEFINITION
	http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:L:2016:084:FULL%26from=EN , art. 4(2)	‘terrestrial animals’ means birds, terrestrial mammals, bees and bumble bees;
	http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:L:2016:084:FULL%26from=EN , art. 4(5)	‘kept animals’ means animals which are kept by humans, including, in the case of aquatic animals, aquaculture animals;

Mandate number	Terms of reference	Epidemiological question category
M‐2014‐0316	Epidemiological analysis of the current situation regarding HPAI subtype H5N8 in Europe in order to assess possible entry routes and in particular the role played by wild birds	Descriptive statistics
M‐2014‐0316	Epidemiological analysis of the current situation regarding HPAI subtype H5N8 in Europe in order to assess possible entry routes and in particular the role played by wild birds	Risk factors analysis
M‐2014‐0316	Review of the epidemiological situation of HP AI subtype H5N8 in the world	Descriptive statistics
M‐2015‐0079	Risk of introduction of HPAI H5N8 and possibly other HPAI viruses considering the possible entry routes in EU	Probability of introduction
M‐2015‐0079	The risk posed by HPAI H5N8 and possibly other HPAI viruses for public and animal health, and specifically with a view to assess the suitability of the provisions on BIOSECURITY and early detection to reduce the risk of its introduction into poultry holdings laid down in Decision 2005/734/EC	Effectiveness of biosecurity measures
M‐2015‐0079	The risk posed by HPAI H5N8 and possibly other HPAI viruses for public and animal health, and specifically with a view to assess the suitability of the provisions on biosecurity and EARLY DETECTION to reduce the risk of its introduction into poultry holdings laid down in Decision 2005/734/EC	Effectiveness of sampling schemes
M‐2015‐0079	The risk posed by HPAI H5N8 and possibly other HPAI viruses for public and animal health, and specifically with a view to assess the suitability of the provisions on PROTECTION MEASURES in poultry in case of its occurrence in wild birds laid down in Decision 2006/563/EC	Effectiveness of protection measures
M‐2015‐0079	The risk posed by HPAI H5N8 and possibly other HPAI viruses for public and animal health, and specifically with a view to assess the suitability of the provisions on THE SURVEILLANCE STRATEGY, in particular objectives and methodology, laid down in Decision 2010/367/EC	Effectiveness of sampling schemes
M‐2015‐0079	The current situation in EU and elsewhere as regards the risk of possible introduction of HPAI H5N8 virus and possibly other HPAI viruses to EU poultry holdings	Descriptive statistics
M‐2015‐0079	The continuous risk posed by LPAI (H5 & H7) for the introduction from the wild bird reservoir into poultry holdings taking into account risks for holdings where poultry is kept in open air runs […]	Probability of introduction
M‐2015‐0079	The continuous risk posed by LPAI (H5 & H7) for the introduction from the wild bird reservoir into poultry holdings taking into account risks for holdings where poultry is kept in open air runs […]	Risk factors analysis
M‐2015‐0079	[…] and the suitability of SURVEILLANCE […]	Effectiveness of sampling schemes
M‐2015‐0079	[…] and BIOSECURITY MEASURES aimed at protection of poultry against LPAI infection	Effectiveness of biosecurity measures
M‐2014‐0057	Is it feasible to drastically reduce the wild boar population by hunting or by the use of traps? In case of positive reply, for how long that strategy would need to be put in place in order to prevent a new increase of the density of the population?	Trend analysis
M‐2014‐0057	Could increased hunting pressure be a proper disease management tool in disease free areas adjacent to area(s) where the occurrence of virus has been confirmed in the wild boar, to minimise the risk of ASF introduction?	Effectiveness of protection measures
M‐2014‐0057	Would hunting significantly reduce the risk of ASF introduction and its spread?	Effectiveness of countermeasures
M‐2014‐0057	Would prevention of movement of wild boars by feeding or artificial physical barriers reduce the risk of spread of ASF?	Effectiveness of countermeasures
M‐2014‐0323	In view of controlling ASF, assess the best management options for wild boar both in infected areas and in the bordering risk areas, taking into account the local climatic conditions and wild boar ecology. Assess in particular the suitability, effectiveness and the practical aspects of implementation of the main measures, in particular different tailor‐made feed ban(s) for wild boar, selective well‐described hunting practices, taking into account the local situations and giving quantitative baseline indications on these measures as well as spatial and temporal parameters.	Risk factors analysis
M‐2014‐0323	In view of controlling ASF, assess the best management options for wild boar both in infected areas and in the bordering risk areas, taking into account the local climatic conditions and wild boar ecology. Assess in particular the suitability, effectiveness and the practical aspects of implementation of the main measures, in particular different tailor‐made feed ban(s) for wild boar, selective well‐described hunting practices, taking into account the local situations and giving quantitative baseline indications on these measures as well as spatial and temporal parameters	Effectiveness of countermeasures
M‐2014‐0323	Evaluate the epidemiological data on ASF from Lithuania, Poland, Latvia and Estonia in order to obtain indications on the local behaviour of ASF in the wild boar population and its interaction with domestic pigs	Descriptive statistics
M‐2014‐0323	Assess the possible risk of spread of ASF‐Genotype II strains/isolates currently or recently circulating in Europe, and especially in Russia or the Baltic States, by pigs or wild boar becoming “carrier” that might play a role in virus transmission while remaining non‐symptomatic	Spread pattern analysis
M‐2014‐0323	Where new data is available, provide an update of previous Scientific Opinions on ASF, in particular: i) describe identifiable relevant trends in wild boar population dynamics in the EU and its Eastern neighbouring territories; and ii) provide an updated distribution of ASF competent vectors (soft ticks) and its possible role on ASF epidemiology specially in Russia or the Baltic States	Trend analysis
M‐2014‐0323	Where new data is available, provide an update of previous Scientific Opinions on ASF, in particular: i) describe identifiable relevant trends in wild boar population dynamics in the EU and its Eastern neighbouring territories; and ii) provide an updated distribution of ASF competent vectors (soft ticks) and its possible role on ASF epidemiology specially in Russia or the Baltic States	Descriptive statistics
M‐2016‐0048	Analyse the epidemiological data on ASF in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and any other Member States at the eastern borders of the EU that might be affected by ASF	Descriptive statistics
M‐2016‐0048	Include an analysis of the TEMPORAL pattern of ASF in wild boar and domestic pigs	Trend analysis
M‐2016‐0048	Include an analysis of the SPATIAL pattern of ASF in wild boar and domestic pigs	Trend analysis
M‐2016‐0048	Include an analysis of the RISK FACTORS involved in the occurrence, spread and persistence of the ASF virus in the wild boar population and in the domestic wildlife interface	Risk factors analysis
M‐2013‐0332	Characterise the disease and provide an update on the global occurrence of LSD and changes in the distribution during the last 10 years	Descriptive statistics
M‐2013‐0332	Characterise the disease and provide an update on the global occurrence of LSD and changes in the distribution during the last 10 years	Trend analysis
M‐2013‐0332	Provide a mapping of the region of concern and other countries of the Mediterranean Basin and Black Sea, displaying identified, or likely, major live animal trade routes	Descriptive statistics
M‐2013‐0332	Evaluate all possible pathways of introduction of LSD into the EU, ranking them on the basis of their level of risk, with a view to enhance preparedness and prevention	Risk factors analysis
M‐2013‐0332	Assess the risk and speed of propagation of LSD into the EU and neighbouring countries	Spread pattern analysis
M‐2013‐0332	Assess the risk of LSD becoming endemic in animal population in the EU and neighboring countries	Probability of endemicity
M‐2013‐0332	Assess the impact of LSD if it were to enter the EU considering different scenarios as regards the effectiveness of surveillance and control measures	Impact assessment
M‐2013‐0332	Briefly review the feasibility, availability, and effectiveness of the main disease prevention and control measures (diagnostic tools, biosecurity measures, restrictions on the movements, culling)	Effectiveness of sampling schemes
M‐2013‐0332	Briefly review the feasibility, availability, and effectiveness of the main disease prevention and control measures (diagnostic tools, biosecurity measures, restrictions on the movements, culling)	Effectiveness of biosecurity measures
M‐2013‐0332	Briefly review the feasibility, availability, and effectiveness of the main disease prevention and control measures (diagnostic tools, biosecurity measures, restrictions on the movements, culling)	Effectiveness of countermeasures
M‐2016‐0122	Assess the implications in disease spread and persistence from the implementation of a partial stamping‐out policy (killing and destruction of clinically affected animals only) in holdings where the presence of LSD has been confirmed, against the current EFSA's advice and policy in place for total stamping‐out of infected herds coupled with vaccination	Effectiveness of countermeasures
M‐2016‐0170	Analyse the epidemiological data on LSD from Cyprus, Greece, Bulgaria and any other Member States or non‐EU countries that might be affected by LSD	Descriptive statistics
M‐2016‐0170	Include an analysis of the temporal and spatial patterns of LSD	Trend analysis
M‐2016‐0170	Include an analysis of the risk factors involved in the occurrence, spread and persistence of the LSD virus among the cattle population	Risk factors analysis
M‐2012‐0200	Regular follow‐up of the literature regarding EM infection in animals in the European Union and adjacent countries, including its geographical distribution and prevalence;	Descriptive statistics
M‐2012‐0200	Analysis and critical assessment, in the context of Regulation (EU) No 1152/2011, of (i) the sampling strategy considered for the programmes of the Member States concerned; (ii) the data collected in the framework of these programmes; (iii) the detection methods used	Effectiveness of sampling schemes
M‐2012‐0200	Analysis and critical assessment, in the context of Regulation (EU) No 1152/2011, of (i) the sampling strategy considered for the programmes of the Member States concerned; (ii) the data collected in the framework of these programmes; (iii) the detection methods used	Descriptive statistics
M‐2012‐0200	Analysis and critical assessment, in the context of Regulation (EU) No 1152/2011, of (i) the sampling strategy considered for the programmes of the Member States concerned; (ii) the data collected in the framework of these programmes; (iii) the detection methods used	Effectiveness of sampling schemes
M‐2014‐0288	1. To describe Echinococcus multilocularis infection in animals in the European Union and adjacent countries and in particular: a) the geographical distribution and prevalence of Echinococcus multilocularis infection in the main infected domestic and wildlife species involved in the Echinococcus multilocularis lifecycle; b) the importance and role of the different host species in the life cycle of the parasite; c) the risk factors for and the probability of introduction and establishment of Echinococcus multilocularis in areas where it has never been recorded, through the movement of infected domestic and wildlife species involved in the Echinococcus multilocularis lifecycle;	Descriptive statistics
M‐2014‐0288	1. To describe Echinococcus multilocularis infection in animals in the European Union and adjacent countries and in particular: a) the geographical distribution and prevalence of Echinococcus multilocularis infection in the main infected domestic and wildlife species involved in the Echinococcus multilocularis lifecycle; b) the importance and role of the different host species in the life cycle of the parasite; c) the risk factors for and the probability of introduction and establishment of Echinococcus multilocularis in areas where it has never been recorded, through the movement of infected domestic and wildlife species involved in the Echinococcus multilocularis lifecycle;	Risk factors analysis
M‐2014‐0288	1. To describe Echinococcus multilocularis infection in animals in the European Union and adjacent countries and in particular: a) the geographical distribution and prevalence of Echinococcus multilocularis infection in the main infected domestic and wildlife species involved in the Echinococcus multilocularis lifecycle; b) the importance and role of the different host species in the life cycle of the parasite; c) the risk factors for and the probability of introduction and establishment of Echinococcus multilocularis in areas where it has never been recorded, through the movement of infected domestic and wildlife species involved in the Echinococcus multilocularis lifecycle;	Risk factors analysis
M‐2014‐0288	1. To describe Echinococcus multilocularis infection in animals in the European Union and adjacent countries and in particular: a) the geographical distribution and prevalence of Echinococcus multilocularis infection in the main infected domestic and wildlife species involved in the Echinococcus multilocularis lifecycle; b) the importance and role of the different host species in the life cycle of the parasite; c) the risk factors for and the probability of introduction and establishment of Echinococcus multilocularis in areas where it has never been recorded, through the movement of infected domestic and wildlife species involved in the Echinococcus multilocularis lifecycle;	Probability of introduction
M‐2014‐0288	2. To assess the current situation in the European Union and adjacent countries regarding: a) the monitoring and surveillance programmes of Echinococcus multilocularis infection in definitive and intermediate hosts, and the probability of detection if Echinococcus multilocularis is introduced into areas where it is has never been recorded; b) the programmes for the eradication of Echinococcus multilocularis in wildlife host species;	Effectiveness of sampling schemes
M‐2014‐0288	2. To assess the current situation in the European Union and adjacent countries regarding: a) the monitoring and surveillance programmes of Echinococcus multilocularis infection in definitive and intermediate hosts, and the probability of detection if Echinococcus multilocularis is introduced into areas where it is has never been recorded; b) the programmes for the eradication of Echinococcus multilocularis in wildlife host species;	Effectiveness of sampling schemes
M‐2014‐0288	2. To assess the current situation in the European Union and adjacent countries regarding: a) the monitoring and surveillance programmes of Echinococcus multilocularis infection in definitive and intermediate hosts, and the probability of detection if Echinococcus multilocularis is introduced into areas where it is has never been recorded; b) the programmes for the eradication of Echinococcus multilocularis in wildlife host species;	Effectiveness of countermeasures
M‐2014‐0288	3. To describe the current situation in the European Union and adjacent countries regarding: a) the risk factors associated with human alveolar echinococcosis; b) the impact of Echinococcus multilocularis infection in animals on public health;	Risk factors analysis
M‐2014‐0288	3. To describe the current situation in the European Union and adjacent countries regarding: a) the risk factors associated with human alveolar echinococcosis; b) the impact of Echinococcus multilocularis infection in animals on public health;	Impact assessment
M‐2014‐0288	4. To describe the efficacy of available Echinococcus multilocularis drugs and the effectiveness of the current species‐specific treatment protocols to protect domestic species against the parasite;	Effectiveness of countermeasures
M‐2014‐0288	5. To assess the laboratory techniques for the detection of Echinococcus multilocularis in live and dead animals, in terms of sensitivity, specificity, predictive values and practicability (i.e. rapidity, large scale use, ease of use)	Effectiveness of sampling schemes

PERMALINK

SIGMA Animal Disease Data Model

Gabriele Zancanaro

Sotiria Eleni Antoniou

Marta Bedriova

Frank Boelaert

José Gonzales Rojas

Mario Monguidi

Helen Roberts

Sören Saxmose Nielsen

Hans‐Herman Thulke

Abstract

1. Background

2. The SIGMA project in a nutshell

Figure 1.

2.1. SIGMA Phase 1

2.2. SIGMA Phase 2

2.3. SIGMA Phase 3

3. The SIGMA Animal Disease Data Model (σ‐ADM)

Figure 2.

4. The σ‐Animal Disease Data Model

Figure 4.

4.1. Harmonised

Figure 3.

4.2. Flexible

Table 1.

Table 2.

4.3. Compatible

4.4. Fit for purpose

5. From the critical analysis to the solution: a stepwise approach towards the SIGMA‐ADM

5.1. Risk assessment requests/Terms of reference

Table 3.

5.2. Envisaged Analysis

Table 4.

5.3. Definition of the data needs

5.4. Data Model building

5.4.1. DATA MODEL SPECIFICATION

5.4.2. ESTABLISHMENT

5.4.3. SUB_UNIT

5.4.4. KEPT_ANIMAL

5.4.5. GEO_LOCATION

5.4.6. DISEASE_DETECTION

5.4.7. ENUMERATION

6. σ‐ADM (Relational structure)

7. Testing the fitness of the draft σ‐ADM

8. User case and benefits

8.1. Animal Health and Welfare: the case of the avian influenza

8.1.1. Benefits of the σ‐ADM on the EFSA quarterly report and the Avian Influenza surveillance report

8.2. Zoonotic agents: the case of ‘double reporting’ (see also Appendix H)

8.2.1. Benefits of the SIGMA project in the field of the zoonotic diseases

Glossary

Abbreviations

Appendix A – Full data model (flat)

1.

Appendix B – Entity Relationship diagram (relational model)

1.

Appendix C – Legal references, discussions, justifications and reasoning

1.

Appendix D – Results of the systematic search in the Risk Assessment Workflow (RAW)

1.

Table D.1.

Table D.2.

Appendix E – List of terms of reference and related epidemiological question category

1.

Appendix F – List and definitions of possible statistical analysis and approaches and/or parameters as per the Preliminary Plan of Analysis

1.

Appendix G – List and definitions of the identified categories of data input

1.

Appendix H – A Zoonoses perspective: the case of double reporting of animal populations

Introduction

H.1. Issue

Table H.1.

H.2. Legislation

H.2.1. Animal population data submitted by MS to EFSA

H.2.2. Animal population data provided to the European Commission

Table H.2.

H.2.3. Creating a WIN‐WIN situation for MSs, EFSA and the European Commission with SIGMA and avoid double reporting of animal population in the zoonoses domain

Notes

References

ACTIONS

Input data category	Number of times required	Definition
Case	10	An individual animal infected by a pathogenic agent, with or without clinical signs. (OIE terrestrial code)
Time	8	It's the point in time (usually a date) linked to a specific event or on which a given information is recorded
Population	4	As a very broad definition, the population can be described as any group of units sharing a common defined characteristic (OIE). From a statistical point of view, this can be either the target population (i.e. the population to which it might be possible to extrapolate results from a study) or the source population (i.e. the population from which the study subjects are drawn). It is at source population level that a risk assessor is asked to infer
Population size	6	Total number of units in a population
Population composition	5	Description of the population according to defined characteristics e.g. Sex, age, production type
Exposure	5	Epidemiological term applied to any factor (risk factor) that may be associated with an outcome of interest. If the outcome of interest is occurrence of disease, then exposure is any characteristic (e.g. existence of infected animals, vaccination status, etc.) that may affect the health outcome (diseased/not‐diseased) In relation to a given risk factor, an individual animal has come into contact with, or is predisposed to becoming infected with a pathogen which would result in an increased likelihood of becoming infected
Geographical Location	3	The most detailed information on the positioning of an entity on Earth
Test diagnostic sensitivity	2	The diagnostic sensitivity of the analytical test (according to the OIE Manual)
Test diagnostic specificity	2	The diagnostic specificity of the analytical test (according to the OIE Manual)
Animal movements	1	The list of all movements of an animal since its birth until its death, with details on the establishments in which it is kept
Sampling scheme	1	The underpinning rationale/statistical approach used to perform all relevant steps in a sampling exercise, i.e. definition of the goal, estimation of the sample size, selection of the sampling units, etc.
Species/Breed	1	Genus, species and, when relevant, breed of the concerned animals
Vaccination status	1	The status of the animal in relation to the vaccine intervention

	EFSA	European Commission
Tasks and purpose	Focus on eight mandatory zoonoses Trends and sources : analyse and report patterns over time Annual situational update Epidemiological data analysis	Animal disease information Broader list of diseases to be reported in comparison to EFSA Notification Epidemiological data and financial data (reimbursement)
Data collected	Food animal data, i.e.: Farm animals (poultry, ruminants, pigs, solipeds), wildlife animals Animal‐ and herd‐ and holding‐level data variables Epidemiological data Information on data models is in following of the annual zoonoses monitoring data reporting on zoonoses, food‐borne outbreaks and antimicrobial resistance (https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.2903/sp.efsa.2018.EN-1368)	Food animal data, i.e.: Mostly farm animals (poultry, ruminants, pigs, solipeds) Animal‐ and herd‐ and holding‐level data variables Decision 2003/886/EC lists the data that the European Commission requests from MS for the Annual Report on bovine and swine diseases as requested by Article 8 of Directive 64/432/EEC Financial data (Commission Decision 2014/288/EU): D4 Food safety programme emergency funding Epidemiological data: G2 Animal health and welfare, 2003/886/EC

	EFSA	European Commission
Type of data	Aggregated	Aggregated
Scope	Epidemiological analysis	Claiming reimbursement (EU‐approved and veterinary programmes co‐funded ONLY) Need direct data transmission for financial accountability
Variables	types of flocks or herds total number of animals total number of animals under the programme total number of herds total number of herds under the programme total number of herds tested, … Information on the animal population data model is on p. 42 and on the disease status data model is on p. 45 and following of the annual zoonoses monitoring data reporting on zoonoses, food‐borne outbreaks and antimicrobial resistance (https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.2903/sp.efsa.2018.EN-1368)	Different data elements (only partial overlap) and text forms Data model seems comparable with EFSA but more detailed analysis needed
Submission date	31 May	30 April