Social and environmental determinants of <i>Aedes aegypti</i> infestation in Central Havana: results of a case–control study nested in an integrated dengue surveillance programme in Cuba
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To characterize the social and environmental risk factors associated with the presence of Aedes aegypti in order to improve community dengue control. METHODS: A case-control study with 'cases' being households with entomologically confirmed A. aegypti infestation; personal interviews in Central Havana, a densely populated inner city area characterized by overcrowded housing and irregular water service. The participants were residents of 278 houses with infestation and 556 houses without infestation. RESULTS: Greater risk of infestation was associated with lack of preventive measures, such as no larvicide in the water tanks (OR = 2.21) and use of flower vases for religious practice (1.93), not being economically active (1.64), vulnerable populations with higher risks in households with older people (1.52) and households with children (1.94). CONCLUSIONS: Efforts to reduce infestations should continue to focus on water tank sanitation and improving housing conditions, but also engage community religious leaders to help promote safe practices. Vulnerable populations should be especially targeted by prevention activities. A surveillance programme can produce evidence to guide interventions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".