Development and validation of climate and ecosystem-based early malaria epidemic prediction models in East Africa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Malaria epidemics remain a serious threat to human populations living in the highlands of East Africa where transmission is unstable and climate sensitive. An existing early malaria epidemic prediction model required further development, validations and automation before its wide use and application in the region. The model has a lead-time of two to four months between the detection of the epidemic signal and the evolution of the epidemic. The validated models would be of great use in the early detection and prevention of malaria epidemics. METHODS: Confirmed inpatient malaria data were collected from eight sites in Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda for the period 1995-2009. Temperature and rainfall data for the period 1960-2009 were collected from meteorological stations closest to the source of the malaria data. Process-based models were constructed for computing the risk of an epidemic in two general highland ecosystems using temperature and rainfall data. The sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive power were used to validate the models. RESULTS: Depending on the availability and quality of the malaria and meteorological data, the models indicated good functionality at all sites. Only two sites in Kenya had data that met the criteria for the full validation of the models. The additive model was found most suited for the poorly drained U-shaped valley ecosystems while the multiplicative model was most suited for the well-drained V-shaped valley ecosystem. The +18°C model was adaptable to any of the ecosystems and was designed for conditions where climatology data were not available. The additive model scored 100% for sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive power. The multiplicative model had a sensitivity of 75% specificity of 99% and a positive predictive power of 86%. CONCLUSIONS: The additive and multiplicative models were validated and were shown to be robust and with high climate-based, early epidemic predictive power. They are designed for use in the common, well- and poorly drained valley ecosystems in the highlands of East Africa.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".