MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2108588322 · doi:10.1098/rspb.2007.1545

On the evolution of reproductive restraint in malaria

2008· article· en· W2108588322 on OpenAlexafffund
Nicole Mideo, Troy Day

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMalaria Research and Control
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMitacsQueen's UniversityCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsGametocyteMalariaBiologyParasite hostingCompetition (biology)Plasmodium (life cycle)Basic reproduction numberEvolutionary biologyZoologyImmunologyEcologyDemographyPlasmodium falciparumPopulationSociologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Malaria is one of the leading causes of death among infectious diseases in the world, claiming over one million lives every year. By these standards, this highly complex parasite is extremely successful at generating new infections. Somewhat surprisingly, however, many malaria species seem to invest relatively little in gametocytes, converting only a small percentage of circulating asexual parasite forms into this transmissible form. In this article, we use mathematical models to explore three of the hypotheses that have been proposed to explain this apparent 'reproductive restraint' and develop a novel, fourth hypothesis. We find that only one of the previous three hypotheses we explore can explain such low gametocyte conversion rates, and this hypothesis involves a very specific form of density-dependent transmission-blocking immunity. Our fourth hypothesis also provides a potential explanation and is based on the occurrence of multiple infections and the resultant within-host competition between malaria strains that this entails. Further experimental work is needed to determine which of these two hypotheses provides the most likely explanation.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.416
Threshold uncertainty score0.657

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.234 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations71
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Royal Society B Biological SciencesSame topicMalaria Research and ControlFrench-language works237,207