Back

Surveillance-adjusted syphilis risk mapping across U.S. counties: a Bayesian spatial analysis with external validation against HIV and gonorrhea outcomes

Ma, Q.; Zhang, T.; Lin, D.

2026-07-13 epidemiology
10.64898/2026.07.09.26357652 medRxiv
Show abstract

Abstract Objectives: To estimate surveillance-adjusted county-level residual syphilis risk, quantify posterior support for elevated risk, and identify the geographic distribution of stably high-risk areas across the contiguous United States and the District of Columbia. Methods: County-year primary and secondary syphilis counts from 3,109 counties during 2010-2022 were analyzed using a Bayesian negative-binomial spatial model with county-level covariates capturing social vulnerability and healthcare and surveillance related structure. Residual spatial risk, posterior exceedance probabilities, and stably high-risk counties were estimated. External validation examined whether county-level residual syphilis risk was associated with HIV and gonorrhea burden. Results: A total of 850 stably high-risk counties were identified. These counties were concentrated in the southeastern United States and along the Gulf Coast, with additional clusters in the north-central region and along the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. The social vulnerability index showed the strongest positive association with reported syphilis rates, followed by primary care physician density. External validation and sensitivity analyses showed that higher county-level residual syphilis risk estimates were positively associated with higher HIV diagnosis rates and gonorrhea rates, indicating that these estimates were not merely model-derived numerical outputs but were meaningfully related to the county-level distribution of sexually transmitted infection risk. These findings indicate that surveillance-adjusted residual spatial risk estimates and posterior exceedance probabilities may provide useful county-level evidence for syphilis control prioritization and resource allocation.

Matching journals

The top 10 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.