Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 292

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

EPIZOOTIOLOGY OF CHRONIC WASTING DISEASE IN FREE-RANGING CERVIDS IN COLORADO AND WYOMING

Open access
Miller, Michael W., Williams, Elizabeth S., McCarty, Craig W., Spraker, Terry R., Kreeger, Terry J., Larsen, Catherine T., Thorne, E. Tom·2000·Journal of Wildlife Diseases

Abstract

Surveillance and epidemic modeling were used to study chronic wasting disease (CWD), a transmissible spongiform encephalopathy that occurs naturally among sympatric, free-ranging deer (Odocoileus spp.) and Rocky Mountain elk (Cervus elaphus nelsoni) populations in contiguous portions of northeastern Colorado and southeastern Wyoming (USA). We used clinical case submissions to identify endemic areas, then used immunohistochemistry to detect CWD-infected individuals among 5,513 deer and elk sampled via geographically-focused random surveys. Estimated overall prevalence (prevalence, 95% confidence interval) in mule deer (4.9%, 4.1 to 5.7%) was higher than in white-tailed deer (2.1%, 0.5 to 3.4%) or elk (0.5%, 0.001 to 1%) in endemic areas; CWD was not detected in outlying portions of either state. Within species, CWD prevalence varied widely among biologically- or geographically-segregated subpopulations within the 38,137 km2 endemic area but appeared stable over a 3-yr period. The number of clinical CWD cases submitted from an area was a poor predictor of local CWD prevalence, and prevalence was typically > or =1% before clinical cases were first detected in most areas. Under plausible transmission assumptions that mimicked field data, prevalence in epidemic models reached about 1% in 15 to 20 yr and about 15% in 37 to 50 yr. Models forecast population declines once prevalence exceeded about 5%. Both field and model data supported the importance of lateral transmission in CWD dynamics. Based on prevalence, spatial distribution, and modeling, we suggest CWD has been occurring in northeastern Colorado and southeastern Wyoming for >30 yr, and may be best represented as an epizootic with a protracted time-scale.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.7589/0090-3558-36.4.676

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 292

Metadata

Authors
Miller, M. W., Williams, E. S., McCarty, C. W., Spraker, T. R., Kreeger, T. J., Larsen, C. T., & Thorne, E. T.
Venue
Journal of Wildlife Diseases
Published
2000-10
Volume
36
Issue
4
Pages
676-690
ISSN
0090-3558 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2124617432
Cited by
292
References
0
FWCI
5.41
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: EPIZOOTIOLOGY OF CHRONIC WASTING DISEASE IN FREE-RANGING CERVIDS IN COLORADO AND WYOMING. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.7589/0090-3558-36.4.676
The paper
Miller, M. W., Williams, E. S., McCarty, C. W., Spraker, T. R., Kreeger, T. J., Larsen, C. T., & Thorne, E. T. (2000). EPIZOOTIOLOGY OF CHRONIC WASTING DISEASE IN FREE-RANGING CERVIDS IN COLORADO AND WYOMING. Journal of Wildlife Diseases. https://doi.org/10.7589/0090-3558-36.4.676

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.