Who is Atlas for?

Atlas is designed for people who need to move from a broad tick-borne disease surveillance question to a focused, evidence-backed investigation question.

Primary users

Atlas is primarily for:

• epidemiologists and disease-surveillance teams;
• public-health analysts who need geographic and One Health context;
• researchers investigating relationships among disease, vectors, pathogens, environment, and populations; and
• public-health partners who need a common, reviewable starting point for discussion.

The product is built around expert review. It does not assume that every user has the same data access, local knowledge, surveillance mandate, or decision authority.

Questions Atlas can help frame

Use Atlas to help ask:

1. What is happening, and where? Find geographic patterns or signals in the available release.
2. What might help explain it? Bring relevant vector, pathogen, environmental, population, or scientific context into view.
3. How strong is the evidence? Check source, vintage, geography, methodology, completeness, and known limitations.
4. What deserves a closer look? Identify an investigation candidate and record the evidence that motivated the question.

Atlas is especially useful when several imperfect sources need to be reviewed together. It is less useful when the question requires a clinical diagnosis, a person-level risk assessment, or an answer that the available public data cannot support.

A typical user session

A reviewer might:

• choose a state or county in Atlas Explorer;
• filter the county list by name, FIPS code, state, or available evidence;
• review the ranked list, map, table, and selected-county detail together;
• open the evidence and methodology context before interpreting a signal;
• adjust supported score assumptions when the interface provides that control;
• copy or export a review brief for a team conversation; and
• share the URL so another reviewer can reproduce the supported geography and filter state.

The exact controls and data coverage depend on the current release. See current capabilities for the status of each documented behavior.

Who makes the decision?

Atlas helps a human reviewer decide what merits investigation. The reviewer and their organization remain responsible for:

• validating the source and context;
• bringing local surveillance knowledge and other approved evidence;
• deciding whether follow-up analysis, field work, or coordination is appropriate; and
• communicating any public-health action through the responsible authority.

A rank, score, map color, or AI-assisted explanation does not transfer that responsibility to Atlas.

Access and trust boundaries

The public Atlas experience is designed to remain usable without signing in. In the professional workspace, a saved default jurisdiction chooses the next Review start when the address has no scope. It does not unlock evidence, change a score, or limit which geographies you can open.

For responsible use, pair every important result with its evidence and provenance context, and read the AI Ethics commitments for the approved boundaries around AI-assisted experiences.