TABLE A1.

Comparison of models for the acquisition and retention of LSDV by biting insects^a

Dose-independent model				Dose-response model
Inactivation rate	Probability of transmission	Relative risk of transmission	DICb	Inactivation rate	Intercept	Slope	DICb
							Bloodc	Skinc
Common	Common	No difference	1,335.3	Common	Common	Zero	1,335.3	1,335.3
Varies	Common	No difference	1,334.6	Common	Common	Common	874.2	684.6
Common	Varies	No difference	1,338.6	Common	Varies	Common	871.1	682.0
Varies	Varies	No difference	1,340.2	Common	Common	Varies	869.0	681.4
Common	Common	Common	1,025.5	Common	Varies	Varies	868.9	680.7
Varies	Common	Common	1,021.0	Varies	Common	Zero	1,334.6	1,334.6
Common	Varies	Common	1,026.8	Varies	Common	Common	863.8	675.1
Varies	Varies	Common	1,025.9	Varies	Varies	Common	864.0	676.5
Common	Common	Varies	1,025.3	Varies	Common	Varies	863.9	677.1
Varies	Common	Varies	1,019.5d	Varies	Varies	Varies	863.9	677.4
Common	Varies	Varies	1,025.5
Varies	Varies	Varies	1,024.5

^aCommon, parameter common to all insect species; varies, parameter varies among insect species; no difference, risk of transmission does not differ between clinical and subclinical animals; zero, parameter fixed at zero.

^bA model with a lower DIC is preferred to one with higher DIC. DIC, deviance information criterion. The model with its DIC shown in bold is the one preferred.

^cLevel of viral DNA in blood or skin used as the proxy measure for infectiousness.

^dAlthough this model has a smaller DIC than the one shown in bold, the difference is less than two and the simpler model was preferred as it has the smaller number of parameters.