MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2134890444 · doi:10.5376/jmr.2015.05.0004

Review of <i>Anopheles</i> Mosquitoes and Malaria in Ancient and Modern Egypt

2015· article· en· W2134890444 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mohamed Kenawy

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Mosquito Research · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMalaria Research and Control
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMalariaAnophelesOutbreakPlasmodium falciparumVector (molecular biology)BiologyInfectivityVeterinary medicineVirologyGeographyMedicineImmunologyVirus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article reviews and discusses the status of Anopheles mosquitoes and malaria in ancient and modern Egypt based on the available and scattered reports. Eleven Anopheles species are present in Egypt of which An. pharoensis and An. sergentii are the proven vectors. The two vectors with their chara­cteristics of zoophilic tendency, low infectivity rates and relatively short longevity convey the unstable type of malaria prevailed in Egypt. The immunologic tests on the Egyptian mummies confirmed the high prevalence of P. falciparum malaria in ancient Egypt. Malaria was endemic in almost all parts of the country but prevalence has shown a steady decrease by 1990, and regressed in most of the Governorates. Then by the end of 1998 till now all reportedcases areimported mainly from Sudan. However, some locally acquired cases were reported in El Faiyoum and Cairo. Moreover, the recent outbreak of falciparum (1 case) and vivax (23 cases) that occurred (May 2014) in Aswan Governorate strongly indicates that malaria is reemerging in the country.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.073
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.303 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations13
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Mosquito ResearchSame topicMalaria Research and ControlFrench-language works237,207