You will be shown a paragraph from a biomedical research paper, followed by a question about the paper. Please extract text from the paragraph to answer the question. Do not include any text in your repsonse other than the answer.

Paragraph: Detailed economic data are collected for large farms. We used the 2006 Agriculture Census for most variables because the first three epidemic waves occurred between the Agricultural Censuses of 2001 and 2006 but were closer in time to the 2006 census [10] . However, for data on poultry numbers we used the 2001 Agriculture Census data set because between 1991 and 2003 the poultry population grew at an average rate of 7% annually. However, in 2004, after the first wave of the H5N1 epidemic, the poultry population fell 15%. Only by mid-2008 did the poultry population return close to pre-epidemic levels. Thus, we considered the poultry population data from the 2001 census to be more representative. We aggregated census household data to the commune level. A three-way classification of the rural-to-urban transition was based on a related study [9] . Raster data on annual mean temperature and precipitation were obtained from the World-Clim database and converted to commune level data. The bioclimatic variables were compiled from the monthly temperature and precipitation values and interpolated to surfaces at 90m spatial resolution [62] . This public database provides data on the average climatic conditions of the period 1950-2000. Elevation was generated from SRTM 90 meter Digital Elevation Models (DEM) acquired from the Consortium for Spatial Information (CGIAR-CSI). Compound Topographical Index (CTI) data were generated using the Geomorphometry and Gradient Metrics Toolbox for Arc-GIS 10.1. Prior to risk factor analysis we cleaned the data by identifying illogical values for all variables and then either assigning a missing value to them or adjusting the values. Illogical values occurred mainly (less than 1% of the cases) for land-related variables such as percentage of commune land under a particular type of land use. Next we tested each variable for normality using the BestFit software (Palisade Corporation). Most of the variables were found to follow a log-normal distribution and a log-transform was used on them. We then examined the bi-variate correlations between all the risk factors (or their log-transform, as the case may be). Correlations were analyzed separately for each place. Certain risk factors were then eliminated from consideration when |r| ! 0.5 (r is the Pearson correlation coefficient). When two risk factors were highly correlated, we chose to include the one which had not been adequately studied explicitly in previously published risk models. Notably, we excluded a) elevation (correlated with human population density, chicken density, duck density, percentage land under paddy, annual temperature and compound topographical index), b) human population density (correlated with elevation and CTI), c) chicken density (only at national level, correlated with CTI), d) duck and goose density (correlated with elevation, chicken density, percentage land under paddy, land use diversity index and CTI), e) annual temperature (correlated with elevation and CTI) and f) cropping intensity (correlated with percentage land under paddy). Considering the importance of spatial autocorrelation in such epidemics, we used two modeling approaches: 1) multi-level Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLMM) and 2) Boosted Regression trees (BRT) [63, 64] with an autoregressive term [65] . GLMM is a 'place' oriented approach that is well suited to analyzing the effect of administrative groupings, while BRT is a 'space' oriented approach that accounts for the effects of physical proximity. We began by deriving an autoregressive term by averaging the presence/absence among a set of neighbors defined by the limit of autocorrelation, weighted by the inverse of the Euclidean distance [65] . The limit of the autocorrelation of the response variable was obtained from the range of the spatial correlogram ρ (h) [66] . To determine which predictor variables to include in the two models, we conducted logistic regression modeling separately for each of them one by one but included the autoregressive term each time. We finally included only those variables whose coefficient had a significance value p 0.2 (in at least one wave-place combination) and we noted the sign of the coefficient. This choice of p value for screening risk factors is common in similar studies [15, 18, 45, 67] . We used a two-level GLMM (communes nested under districts) to take account of random effects for an area influenced by its neighbors, and thus, we studied the effect of spatial autocorrelation. We used robust standard errors for tests of fixed effects. Boosted regression trees, also known as stochastic gradient boosting, was performed to predict the probability of HPAI H5N1 occurrence and determine the relative influence of each risk factor to the HPAI H5N1 occurrence. This method was developed recently and applied widely for distribution prediction in various fields of ecology [63, 64] . It is widely used for species distribution modeling where only the sites of occurrence of the species are known [68] . The method has been applied in numerous studies for predicting the distribution of HPAI H5N1 disease [16, 51, [69] [70] [71] . BRT utilizes regression trees and boosting algorithms to fit several models and combines them for improving prediction by performing iterative loop throughout the model [63, 64] . The advantage of BRT is that it applies stochastic processes that include probabilistic components to improve predictive performance. We used regression trees to select relevant predictor variables and boosting to improve accuracy in a single tree. The sequential process allows trees to be fitted iteratively through a forward stage-wise procedure in the boosting model. Two important parameters specified in the BRT model are learning rate (lr) and tree complexity (tc) to determine the number of trees for optimal prediction [63, 64] . In our model we used 10 sets of training and test points for cross-validation, a tree complexity of 5, a learning rate of 0.01, and a bag fraction of 0.5. Other advantages of BRT include its insensitivity to co-linearity and non-linear responses. However, for the sake of consistency with the GLMM method, we chose to eliminate predictors that were highly correlated with other predictors and to make log-transforms where needed. In the GLMM models we used p 0.05 to identify significant risk factors. The predictive performances of the models were assessed by the area under the curve (AUC) of the receiver operation characteristic (ROC) curve. AUC is a measure of the overall fit of the model that varies from 0.5 (chance event) to 1.0 (perfect fit) [72] . A comparison of AUC with other accuracy metrics concluded that it is the most robust measure of model performance because it remained constant over a wide range of prevalence rates [73] . We used the corrected Akaike Information Criteria (AICc) to compare each GLMM model with and without its respective suite of fixed predictors. We used SPSS version 21 (IBM Corp., New York, 2012) for GLMM and R version 3.1.0 (The R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2014) for the BRT. For calculating the spatial correlogram we used the spdep package of R.

The fourteen predictor variables we modeled (see tables) were all found to be significantly associated with HPAI H5N1 outbreaks (p 0.2) in at least one wave-place combination based on univariate analysis (but including the autoregressive term) ( Table 1) . Land-use diversity, chicken density, poultry flock size diversity and distance to national highway were found to have significant associations across five of the six wave-place combinations. power of the GLMM models, as measured by the AUC, is very good with AUC values ranging from 0.802 to 0.952 (Tables 2-7 ). The predictive power of the national models was higher than that of the delta models. The predictive power of the BRT models is good, with AUCs ranging from 0.737 to 0.914. The BRT models also had a better predictive power at the national level than at the delta level. These values are higher than those reported for Wave 1 (AUC = 0.69) and Wave 2 (AUC = 0.77) by Gilbert et al. [11] . Both Gilbert et al. [11] and this study found that at the national level the predictive performance for Wave 2 was higher than that for Wave 1. Wave 2 mainly affected the Mekong River Delta. Previous studies indicated the duck density was an important predictor [11] ; our results, however, indicated that the diversity of duck flock size was a more important predictor than duck density. Both the GLMM and BRT models found annual precipitation to be a significant factor. The GLMM model indicated a negative association; similar to what was found by studies in China [51] and in the Red River Delta [53] . A global study of human cases also found occurrence to be higher under drier conditions [74] . Generally, the role of precipitation was found to be far more significant in the deltas than for the country as a whole. The unadjusted Relative Risk (RR) of peri-urban areas in comparison with non-peri-urban areas was 1.41 and 1.60 for Waves 1 and 2, respectively. In terms of urbanicity, we found that chicken density, percentage of land under rice, percentage of land under aquaculture, flock size diversity for duck and geese, and the Compound Topographical Index (CTI) to be highest in peri-urban areas (Fig 1a-1e) . We also found that land-use diversity was higher in rural areas, but peri-urban areas had diversity levels only marginally lower (Fig 1f) . The urbanicity variable alone, however, was not found to be significantly associated with HPAI H5N1 in any place according to the GLMM model except for the urban level in Red River Delta for Wave 2 and in the Mekong River Delta for Wave 1. The BRT model ranked urbanicity as one of the least influential variables. Land-use diversity was found to be significantly associated with HPAI H5N1 in both waves for Viet Nam according to the GLMM model, but at the delta level the association was significant only for Wave 2 in the Mekong River Delta. The BRT model indicated that land-use diversity highly influenced HPAI H5N1 at the national level in Wave 2. For the remaining waveplace combinations land-use diversity had middle to below-middle rank of influence. Both the GLMM and BRT models indicated that the diversity of chicken flock-size had a strong association with HPAI H5N1  for both waves at the national level. This was generally found to be true at the delta levels with some exceptions. The diversity of duck and goose flock size was also significantly associated with HPAI H5N1 in all places, but the associations were much stronger in Wave 2 than in Wave 1. The GLMM model indicated that the CTI had a very strong association with HPAI H5N1 at the national level in both waves although this was not true in the two deltas. The CTI is a steady state wetness index commonly used to quantify topographic control on hydrological processes. Accumulation numbers in flat areas, like deltas, are very large; hence the CTI was not a relevant variable in the GLMM model in these areas. The BRT model however indicated that CTI had middle to low influence in all waves and places. We found very high spatial clustering effects as indicated by the fact that in all waves and places the BRT model found the spatial autocorrelation term to have the highest rank of influence. As expected, the relative influence of the autocorrelation term at the national level was higher (60-78%) than at the delta levels (14-35%). In the GLMM models we found the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) using the entire set of 14 variables to be much lower than the AICs of a GLMM model without fixed effects. This indicated that though clustering effects were significant, our theory driven predictor variables improved model performance. A limitation of using surveillance methods for the dependent variable (poultry outbreaks) is that the data may have reporting/detection biases [11] . Under-reporting/detection in rural areas as compared to peri-urban areas is possible. We believe that the urbanicity and the shortest distance to nearest town risk factors serve as rough proxies for reporting/detection efficiency. Previous studies have tended to use human population density as a proxy for this purpose. In our study we found a strong association between human population density and urbanicity. But we acknowledge that a categorical variable such as urbanicity may provide less sensitivity than a continuous variable such as human population density in this specific context. This study explored the validity of a general model for disease emergence that combined the IOM 'convergence model' [6] and the social-ecological systems model [7, 8] , for investigating the specific case of HPAI in Vietnam. We sought to test the hypotheses that measures of urbanization, land-use diversification, and poultry intensification are correlated with outbreaks in poultry. Our results generally support the hypothesis that social-ecological system transformations are associated with H5NI outbreaks in poultry. The results presented here highlight three main findings: 1) when relevant risk factors are taken into account, urbanization is generally not a significant independent risk factor; but in peri-urban landscapes emergence factors converge, including higher levels of chicken densities, duck and geese flock size diversities, and fraction of land under rice or aquaculture; 2) high land-use diversity landscapes, a variable not previously considered in spatial studies of HPAI H5N1, are at significantly greater risk for HPAI H5N1 outbreaks; as are 3) landscapes where intensive and extensive forms of poultry production are co-located. Only one other study has explicitly examined urbanicity in the context of HPAI H5N1. Loth et al. [17] found peri-urban areas in Indonesia were significantly associated with HPAI H5N1 cases, even based on multivariate models. Our study, however, attempted both to associate HPAI H5N1 with degree of urbanicity and to determine the features of peri-urban areas that place them at risk. When those features (i.e., chicken densities, duck and geese flock size diversities, and the fraction of land under rice or aquaculture) are included in multivariate models, the role of the urbanization variable per se diminishes. We found in the main river deltas in Viet Nam (Red River and Mekong), urbanization had no significant association with HPAI H5N1. This may be due to the fact that the deltas are more homogenous, in terms of urbanization, than the country as a whole. This is the first study to examine land-use diversity as a risk factor for HPAI H5N1. Measured by the Gini-Simpson Diversity Index of the five land-use classes on which data were collected in the 2006 Viet Nam Agricultural Census, and the presence or absence of HPAI outbreaks at the commune level, our results indicate a strong association between land-use diversity and HPAI H5N1 at the national level and in the Mekong River Delta. This metric captures both the variety of habitats and of the complexity of geospatial patterning likely associated with transmission intensity. Our results are similar to what has been observed by studies of other EIDs using fragmentation metrics (e.g. [75] [76] [77] . This is one of the few studies, however, to link landscape fragmentation to an EID disease in poultry and not just to the vector and/or hosts of the EID. Previous studies have focused on poultry production factors such as type of species, size of flocks, and extent of commercialization (e.g. [15, [17] [18] [19] . This study expands on those findings by providing evidence that when intensive and extensive systems of chicken and/or duck and geese production co-exist in the same commune, the commune experiences higher risk of disease outbreak.

Question: What is the effect of diversity of chicken flock on H5N1 disease?
diversity of chicken flock-size had a strong association with HPAI H5N1