Peter Rabinowitz

Prof. Dr. Peter Rabinowitz

<sup>1</sup> Department of Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences, and Department of Global Health, University of Washington School of Public Health, Seattle, WA 98195, USA
+2

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

26Years (2001-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
13 August 2014 in BMC Bioinformatics
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
MKMichael J Kane
Michael J Kane
NPNatalie Price
Natalie Price
Matthew ScotchMatthew Scotch
Matthew Scotch
PRPeter Rabinowitz
Peter Rabinowitz
Time series models can play an important role in disease prediction. Incidence data can be used to predict the future occurrence of disease events. Developments in modeling approaches provide an opportunity to compare different time series models for predictive power. We applied ARIMA and Random Forest time series models to incidence data of outbreaks of highly pathogenic avian influenza (H5N1) in Egypt, available through the online EMPRES-I system. We found that the Random Forest model outperformed the ARIMA model in predictive ability. Furthermore, we found that the Random Forest model is effective for predicting outbreaks of H5N1 in Egypt. Random Forest time series modeling provides enhanced predictive ability over existing time series models for the prediction of infectious disease outbreaks. This result, along with those showing the concordance between bird and human outbreaks (Rabinowitz et al. 2012), provides a new approach to predicting these dangerous outbreaks in bird populations based on existing, freely available data. Our analysis uncovers the time-series structure of outbreak severity for highly pathogenic avain influenza (H5N1) in Egypt.

1 January 2015 in Environmental Health Perspectives
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PRPeter Rabinowitz
Peter Rabinowitz
ISIlya B. Slizovskiy
Ilya B. Slizovskiy
VLVanessa Lamers
Vanessa Lamers
STSally J. Trufan
Sally J. Trufan
THTheodore R. Holford
Theodore R. Holford
MSMeredith H. Stowe
Meredith H. Stowe
Background: Little is known about the environmental and public health impact of unconventional natural gas extraction activities, including hydraulic fracturing, that occur near residential areas. Objectives: Our aim was to assess the relationship between household proximity to natural gas wells and reported health symptoms. Methods: We conducted a hypothesis-generating health symptom survey of 492 persons in 180 randomly selected households with ground-fed wells in an area of active natural gas drilling. Gas well proximity for each household was compared with the prevalence and frequency of reported dermal, respiratory, gastrointestinal, cardiovascular, and neurological symptoms. Results: The number of reported health symptoms per person was higher among residents living < 1 km (mean ± SD, 3.27 ± 3.72) compared with > 2 km from the nearest gas well (mean ± SD, 1.60 ± 2.14; p = 0.0002). In a model that adjusted for age, sex, household education, smoking, awareness of environmental risk, work type, and animals in house, reported skin conditions were more common in households < 1 km compared with > 2 km from the nearest gas well (odds ratio = 4.1; 95% CI: 1.4, 12.3; p = 0.01). Upper respiratory symptoms were also more frequently reported in persons living in households < 1 km from gas wells (39%) compared with households 1–2 km or > 2 km from the nearest well (31 and 18%, respectively) (p = 0.004). No equivalent correlation was found between well proximity and other reported groups of respiratory, neurological, cardiovascular, or gastrointestinal conditions. Conclusion: Although these results should be viewed as hypothesis generating, and the population studied was limited to households with a ground-fed water supply, proximity of natural gas wells may be associated with the prevalence of health symptoms including dermal and respiratory conditions in residents living near natural gas extraction activities. Further study of these associations, including the role of specific air and water exposures, is warranted. Citation: Rabinowitz PM, Slizovskiy IB, Lamers V, Trufan SJ, Holford TR, Dziura JD, Peduzzi PN, Kane MJ, Reif JS, Weiss TR, Stowe MH. 2015. Proximity to natural gas wells and reported health status: results of a household survey in Washington County, Pennsylvania. Environ Health Perspect 123:21–26; http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1307732

23 February 2017 in BMC Medical Education
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
PRPeter Rabinowitz
Peter Rabinowitz
BNBarbara J. Natterson-Horowitz
Barbara J. Natterson-Horowitz
LKLaura H. Kahn
Laura H. Kahn
RKRichard Kock
Richard Kock
MPMarguerite Pappaioanou
Marguerite Pappaioanou
One Health is an emerging concept that stresses the linkages between human, animal, and environmental health, as well as the need for interdisciplinary communication and collaboration to address health issues including emerging zoonotic diseases, climate change impacts, and the human-animal bond. It promotes complex problem solving using a systems framework that considers interactions between humans, animals, and their shared environment. While many medical educators may not yet be familiar with the concept, the One Health approach has been endorsed by a number of major medical and public health organizations and is beginning to be implemented in a number of medical schools. In the research setting, One Health opens up new avenues to understand, detect, and prevent emerging infectious diseases, and also to conduct translational studies across species. In the clinical setting, One Health provides practical ways to incorporate environmental and animal contact considerations into patient care. This paper reviews clinical and research aspects of the One Health approach through an illustrative case updating the biopsychosocial model and proposes a basic set of One Health competencies for training and education of human health care providers.

18 March 2013 in Annual Review of Public Health
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PRPeter Rabinowitz
Peter Rabinowitz
LCLisa Conti
Lisa Conti
In the face of growing world human and animal populations and rapid environmental change, the linkages between human, animal, and environmental health are becoming more evident. Because animals and humans have shared risk to health from changing environments, it seems logical to expand the perspective of public health beyond a single species to detect and manage emerging public health threats. Mitigating the effects of climate change, emerging pathogens, toxicant releases, and changes in the built environment requires a retooling of global public health resources and capabilities across multiple species. Furthermore, human and animal health professionals must overcome specific barriers to interprofessional collaboration to implement needed health strategies. This review outlines the relationships between human, animal, and ecosystem health and the public health challenges and opportunities that these links present.

2 October 2018 in BMJ Global Health
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
PRPeter Rabinowitz
Peter Rabinowitz
MPMarguerite Pappaioanou
Marguerite Pappaioanou
KBKevin Louis Bardosh
Kevin Louis Bardosh
LCLisa Conti
Lisa Conti
In 2015, the Rockefeller Foundation-Lancet Commission published a report: Safeguarding Human Health in the Anthropocene Epoch.1 This report outlines the extent to which human activities have degraded the earth’s ecosystems such that basic life support services have become threatened. Among the threats are greenhouse gases and resulting climate change, severe weather patterns, deforestation, desertification, ocean acidification, zoonotic disease outbreaks, biodiversity loss and particulate air pollution. The report concludes that these planetary phenomena pose a serious and urgent threat to human health, well-being and sustainability, and calls for immediate attention to critical multidisciplinary research, and evidence-based policy formulation and timely implementation.

1 December 2017 in One Health
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
MDMeghan F. Davis
Meghan F. Davis
SRShelley C. Rankin
Shelley C. Rankin
JSJanna M. Schurer
Janna M. Schurer
SCStephen Cole
Stephen Cole
LCLisa Conti
Lisa Conti
JZJakob Zinnstag
Jakob Zinnstag
One Health is defined as the intersection and integration of knowledge regarding humans, animals, and the environment, yet as the One Health scientific literature expands, there is considerable heterogeneity of approach and quality of reporting in One Health studies. In addition, many researchers who publish such studies do not include or integrate data from all three domains of human, animal, and environmental health. This points to a critical need to unify guidelines for One Health studies. This report details the Checklist for One Health Epidemiological Reporting of Evidence (COHERE) to guide the design and publication format of future One Health studies. COHERE was developed by a core writing team and international expert review group that represents multiple disciplines, including human medicine, veterinary medicine, public health, allied professionals, clinical laboratory science, epidemiology, the social sciences, ecohealth and environmental health. The twin aims of the COHERE standards are to 1) improve the quality of reporting of observational or interventional epidemiological studies that collect and integrate data from humans, animals and/or vectors, and their environments; and 2) promote the concept that One Health studies should integrate knowledge from these three domains. The 19 standards in the COHERE checklist address descriptions of human populations, animal populations, environmental assessment, spatial and temporal relationships of data from the three domains, integration of analyses and interpretation, and inclusion of expertise in the research team from disciplines related to human health, animal health, and environmental health.