Trachoma Control in Southern Zambia—An International Team Project Employing the SAFE Strategy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine the prevalence of trachoma and to measure the impact of the SAFE strategy (World Health Organization GET 2020 strategy) for treating trachoma in the Gwembe District of Southern Zambia. DESIGN: This is an observational study of the introduction of the SAFE strategy employing a collaborative approach and its impact on trachoma in the area. PARTICIPANTS: Three thousand eight hundred ninety two persons in communities at 26 well sites in the Gwembe district of Southern Zambia were included in this study. METHODS: New, clean water wells were drilled under local supervision for each of 26 identified villages. All people living in villages near the wells were screened for trachoma and then treated with antibiotic if required. Education on personal and environmental hygiene was provided by trained volunteers. Patients affected by trichiasis and corneal scarring received surgery, locally if possible. Attempts to control fly populations by cleaning villages, penning livestock, and digging latrines were undertaken. This was performed under advisement and consultation with local villagers and government officials. Data was collected on variables normally associated with trachoma and others relating to demographics, water quality, environment and hygiene. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Prevalence of trachoma in the area at two years post introduction of SAFE strategy. RESULTS: The overall prevalence of trachoma in the area was 47% in 2001; however, the prevalence was 55% among children under 10 years. At two years post intervention, the overall prevalence of trachoma reduced to 7.6%, and decreased to 10.6% in children under 10 years, and 5.9% among adults. CONCLUSIONS: Continued monitoring and risk factors will need to continue to be addressed in order to sustain this trachoma control project in this area of Zambia.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".