Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2022 Mar 10.
Published in final edited form as: Ticks Tick Borne Dis. 2019 Apr 18;10(5):970–980. doi: 10.1016/j.ttbdis.2019.04.010

Table 3.

Model results comparing tick-based risk metric predictive value.

Model parameters (95% CI) AIC
Town spatial scale (n = 1859)
Rate of submitted nymphs 1.200 (1.180, 1.221) 10,711 0.598
Nymphal infection prevalence 0.988 (0.969, 1.007) 10,263 0.598
Rate of submitted infected nymphs 1.187 (1.166, 1.208) 9970 0.595
Rate of submitted nymphs + degree developed 1.017 (0.999, 1.036) 7271 0.724
Nymphal infection prevalence + degree developed 0.985 (0.966, 1.004) 6762 0.720
Rate of submitted infected nymphs + degree developed 1.021 (1.002, 1.041) 6760 0.720
County spatial scale (n = 88)
Rate of submitted nymphs 1.050 (1.015, 1.087) 1304 0.946
Nymphal infection prevalence 0.998 (0.976, 1.020) 1294 0.944
Rate of submitted infected nymphs 1.050 (1.022, 1.078) 1281 0.945
Rate of submitted nymphs + degree developed 1.051 (1.016, 1.088) 1290 0.946
Nymphal infection prevalence + degree developed 0.998 (0.976, 1.020) 1281 0.944
Rate of submitted infected nymphs + degree developed 1.051 (1.023, 1.079) 1267 0.945