Prevalence of soil-transmitted helminths in remote villages in East Kwaio, Solomon Islands
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Although soil-transmitted helminths (STH) are endemic in Solomon Islands, there are few recent reports on their prevalence. This study aimed to determine the prevalence of STH in residents of remote communities in Solomon Islands. METHODS: A cross-sectional convenience-sampled survey of residents of four adjacent villages in Malaita, Solomon Islands was performed in Atoifi and Na'au in April 2011 and in Abitona and Sifilo in April 2012. All residents older than one year were invited to participate, which involved providing a single sample of faeces examined using a modified Kato-Katz technique and completing a questionnaire that asked demographic and STH-related behaviour questions. RESULTS: The overall participation rate was 52.8%, with 402 participants comprising 49.8% males. Hookworm was the predominant STH with only a single case of trichuriasis found in Atoifi. The total prevalence of hookworm was 22.6% (95% confidence interval: 18.6-27.1); the prevalence of hookworm in Abitona, Na'au and Sifilo was 20.0%, 29.9% and 27.4%, respectively, whereas in Atoifi it was 2.3% (P < 0.001). Intensity was low in all villages. Although health behaviours differed significantly between Atoifi and the other three villages, the type of toilet used was the only significant association with hookworm. DISCUSSION: Residents of Atoifi have a relative freedom from STH compared to the other three villages. Rather than a region-wide morbidity control approach, a "one village at a time" approach aiming to eliminate STH and dealing with each village as a separate autonomous unit empowered to manage its own challenges may be a preferred option.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".