{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.018028846153846152, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 6.053672316384181, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
State-specific detection probabilities and disease prevalence.

Investigations of disease dynamics in wild animal populations often use estimated prevalence or incidence as a measure of true disease frequency. Such indices, almost always based solely on raw counts of infected and uninfected individuals, are often used as the basis for analysis of temporal and spatial dynamics of diseases. Generally, such studies do not account for potential differences in observer detection probabilities of host individuals stratified by biotic and/or abiotic factors. We demonstrate the potential effects of heterogeneity in state-specific detection probabilities on estimated disease prevalence using mark-recapture data from previous work in a House Finch (Carpodacus mexicanus) and Mycoplasma gallisepticum system. In this system, detection probabilities of uninfected finches were generally higher than infected individuals. We show that the magnitude and seasonal pattern of variation in estimated prevalence, corrected for differences in detection probabilities, differed markedly from uncorrected (apparent) prevalence. When the detection probability of uninfected individuals is higher than infected individuals (as in our study), apparent prevalence is negatively biased, and vice versa. In situations where state-specific detection probabilities strongly interact over time, we show that the magnitude and pattern of apparent prevalence can change dramatically; in such cases, observed variations in prevalence may be completely spurious artifacts of variation in detection probability, rather than changes in underlying disease dynamics. Accounting for differential detection probabilities in estimates of disease frequency removes a potentially confounding factor in studies seeking to identify biotic and/or abiotic drivers of disease dynamics. Given that detection probabilities of different groups of individuals are likely to change temporally and spatially in most field studies, our results underscore the importance of estimating and incorporating detection probabilities in estimated disease prevalence (specifically), and more generally, any ecological index used to estimate some parameter of interest. While a mark-recapture approach makes it possible to estimate detection probabilities, it is not always practical, especially at large scales. We discuss several alternative approaches and categorize the assumptions under which analysis of uncorrected prevalence may be acceptable.