Locating irregularly shaped clusters of infection intensity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patterns of disease may take on irregular geographic shapes, especially when features of the physical environment influence risk. Identifying these patterns can be important for planning, and also identifying new environmental or social factors associated with high or low risk of illness. Until recently, cluster detection methods were limited in their ability to detect irregular spatial patterns, and limited to finding clusters that were roughly circular in shape. This approach has less power to detect irregularly-shaped, yet important spatial anomalies, particularly at high spatial resolutions. We employ a new method of finding irregularly-shaped spatial clusters at micro-geographical scales using both simulated and real data on Schistosoma mansoni and hookworm infection intensities. This method, which we refer to as the "greedy growth scan", is a modification of the spatial scan method for cluster detection. Real data are based on samples of hookworm and S. mansoni from Kitengei, Makueni district, Kenya. Our analysis of simulated data shows how methods able to find irregular shapes are more likely to identify clusters along rivers than methods constrained to fixed geometries. Our analysis of infection intensity identifies two small areas within the study region in which infection intensity is elevated, possibly due to local features of the physical or social environment. Collectively, our results show that the "greedy growth scan" is a suitable method for exploratory geographical analysis of infection intensity data when irregular shapes are suspected, especially at micro-geographical scales.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".