Rapid diagnostic tests for the home-based management of malaria, in a high-transmission area
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rapid diagnostic tests (RDT) are sometimes recommended to improve the home-based management of malaria. The accuracy of an RDT for the detection of clinical malaria and the presence of malarial parasites has recently been evaluated in a high-transmission area of southern Mali. During the same study, the cost-effectiveness of a 'test-and-treat' strategy for the home-based management of malaria (based on an artemisinin-combination therapy) was compared with that of a 'treat-all' strategy. Overall, 301 patients, of all ages, each of whom had been considered a presumptive case of uncomplicated malaria by a village healthworker, were checked with a commercial RDT (Paracheck-Pf). The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of this test, compared with the results of microscopy and two different definitions of clinical malaria, were then determined. The RDT was found to be 82.9% sensitive (with a 95% confidence interval of 78.0%-87.1%) and 78.9% (63.9%-89.7%) specific compared with the detection of parasites by microscopy. In the detection of clinical malaria, it was 95.2% (91.3%-97.6%) sensitive and 57.4% (48.2%-66.2%) specific compared with a general practitioner's diagnosis of the disease, and 100.0% (94.5%-100.0%) sensitive but only 30.2% (24.8%-36.2%) specific when compared against the fulfillment of the World Health Organization's (2003) research criteria for uncomplicated malaria. Among children aged 0-5 years, the cost of the 'test-and-treat' strategy, per episode, was about twice that of the 'treat-all' (U.S.$1.0. v. U.S.$0.5). In older subjects, however, the two strategies were equally costly (approximately U.S.$2/episode). In conclusion, for children aged 0-5 years in a high-transmission area of sub-Saharan Africa, use of the RDT was not cost-effective compared with the presumptive treatment of malaria with an ACT. In older patients, use of the RDT did not reduce costs. The question remains whether either of the strategies investigated can be made affordable for the affected population.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".