Malaria Transmission, Infection, and Disease at Three Sites with Varied Transmission Intensity in Uganda: Implications for Malaria Control
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The intensification of control interventions has led to marked reductions in malaria burden in some settings, but not others. To provide a comprehensive description of malaria epidemiology in Uganda, we conducted surveillance studies over 24 months in 100 houses randomly selected from each of three subcounties: Walukuba (peri-urban), Kihihi (rural), and Nagongera (rural). Annual entomological inoculation rate (aEIR) was estimated from monthly Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) light trap mosquito collections. Children aged 0.5-10 years were provided long-lasting insecticidal nets (LLINs) and followed for measures of parasite prevalence, anemia and malaria incidence. Estimates of aEIR were 2.8, 32.0, and 310 infectious bites per year, and estimates of parasite prevalence 7.4%, 9.3%, and 28.7% for Walukuba, Kihihi, and Nagongera, respectively. Over the 2-year study, malaria incidence per person-years decreased in Walukuba (0.51 versus 0.31, P = 0.001) and increased in Kihihi (0.97 versus 1.93, P < 0.001) and Nagongera (2.33 versus 3.30, P < 0.001). Of 2,582 episodes of malaria, only 8 (0.3%) met criteria for severe disease. The prevalence of anemia was low and not associated with transmission intensity. In our cohorts, where LLINs and prompt effective treatment were provided, the risk of complicated malaria and anemia was extremely low. However, malaria incidence was high and increased over time at the two rural sites, suggesting improved community-wide coverage of LLIN and additional malaria control interventions are needed in Uganda.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".